Born in 1485 in Pieve di Cadore, Tiziano Vecelli was one of the greatest 16th century Venetian painters. Better known as Titian, he was equally qualified at portraits, landscapes and religious and mythological subjects. He went through a period of drastic change while in his 40s, and his work had obvious results. Only his intense interest in color is maintained throughout all of the works in his life.
Titians first major apprenticeship was with Giovanni Bellini, a leading artist in Venice at the time. However, Titian was soon equal to and perhaps surpassing his teacher, producing some tension between the two masters. After Bellini and a couple other prominent artists in Venice died around 1516, Titian was left unrivaled in the city of Venice for the next sixty years. This is when he began to undertake more complex subjects, moving forward in his mastery. 
Around 1521 Titian reached the height of his fame, with large mythological scenes and half-length figures and busts of women. During the next period, he devoted himself to a more dramatic style of painting. In the 1540s his work was heavily influenced by Mannerism, a style of art characterized by stylized forms and the pursuit of a representation of idealized beauty.
Near the end of his life, Titian became a perfectionist and incredibly self-critical.
His last work of significance was the Pieta, made for his tomb. He accepted commissions until the end, dying on August 27 of 1576.
15 comments:
OK, thanks to Audrey for starting us off! I think this is a great place to start. I hope you all have some thoughts or questions that come to mind regarding Titian's work, and hopefully this forum will provide us with a way to figure out some answers together. Feel free to throw out any comments, but I'll start with some questions of my own.
1) In looking at Titian's (or anyone else's) work, I always try to think about how his paintings would have appeared to people at that time. Would they be scandalous? Would they be incomprehensible? Would they be exciting? In thinking about answers to these questions, I hope we can continually keep in mind the CONTEXT from which paintings come and in which they exist (i.e. where were they hung/displayed?)
2) As part of the question above, who do you think these paintings were painted for? By that I mean "painted for" literally or figuratively. Is the work just for the painter/artist? Who is the audience? As Audrey mentions, Titian worked by commission. I hope we will continue to think about who commissions paintings (back then and today), who looks at them (and why), and think about how that affects what is painted.
3) And finally, we didn't get a chance to talk specifically about the role of scale in Titian's work. I realize from now on I will put captions with the images so we have that info ready. (Most of the these are around 36 in. by 50 in., but "Assumption" is 23 feet tall!) Both for Titian and hereafter, let's think about what gets depicted on big canvases, and how those big paintings might be different from the same artist's smaller ones.
Great depth. I am unsure of what the lady has in one of her hands...
After doing a little additional research, I found some of the history behind the Venus of Urbino to be quite interesting. The pose she has is based from Giorgione's Sleeping Venus (1510) - except Titian's Venus is (intentionally) much more provocative. The painting was commissioned by the Duke of Urbino and the Venus was meant to be an "instructive model" for the Duke's young bride.
Reaction over the years has been strong but mixed. Mark Twain called it vile, foul, and obscene. Conversely, impressionist Edouard Manet based his Olympia off of the Venus of Urbino but replaced the woman with a prostitute, leading me to believe Manet didn't think Titian's work was strong enough. Who knows, maybe Manet was commissioned by someone sleezier than the Duke of Urbino (joke).
The issue of commissions limiting or guiding the works of artists does make me wonder about other works, both past and present, and whether or not they were products of the artist's own free will.
Titian's ability to capture the skin and fabric of the poeple in his paintings is truly awe-inspiring. Each masterpiece tells a story, despite the original context, that can speak to any generation. I believe Titian wanted people to be pulled into the soft realism of his work and form their own opinions.
So I was googling Titian and I came across this random fact: "The color titian is derived from the artist's frequent use of brownish orange, especially for the hair of his early idealized portraits of courtesans." I thought this was very interesting after we discussed the artist’s use of color in his paintings.
As we know, a great number of his works were commissioned by important religious figures and members of the church. So the subject matter of his paintings changed according to his patron. However, Titian does do interesting work with color and arrangement of the subjects. In the Assumption, he does a great job of tying the three distinct sections together with color and composition. In Venus of Urbino, he also has a distinct purpose in his choice of subject matter and changed the way the nude was viewed. Titian rendered the nude in a more realistic form and had the woman looking directly at the viewer, which I found to be interesting and engaging.
Except for the "Assumption" I've never been a big fan of Titian's subject matter although I respect his ability to paint fabric, skin tones and women's hair with infinite detail and skill. Most of his women subjects are rendered with reddish blond hair to this day called "Titian Hair" - certainly more sophisticated than "Strawberry Blond"!
We are all over looking some beautifully painted landscapes behind Titian's figures. These could have been painted in his studio by students or assistants. They are intriguing, especially the interior/exterior scene behind the reclining Venus. Looking through the window to a landscape beyond, reminds me of Frans Hals, the Dutch painter or Ralph Earl, one of our well known American, early 18th Century Connecticut portrait painters commissioned by wealthy merchants of the area painted sitting or standing next to a window showing a landscape of the family's home or native village.
As for Manet copying Titian - I think he borrowed more than one idea for his canvasses. Look at Manet's "Picnic in the Park" with men dressed in fashionable suits seated at a table cloth on the ground with scantily clad (if that!) women. A little more wine and the scene would be the Bacchanal that Audrey used for her #4 example of Titian's work.
Along with others who have posted, I too have taken a special interest in Titian’s "Venus of Urbino". Upon learning that the subject’s pose was based on that of Giorgione’s "Sleeping Venus", I began to compare the two. (For some reason I tried to choose a “favorite” but failed in my attempt). I find both paintings quite beautiful, and of course they must have been born from extraordinary skill. I’m sure there is also much that can be said for the similarity/difference between the colors used in each image, as well as the lighting, composition, and so on. However, what I find most intriguing is the manner in which both Venus of Urbino and Sleeping Venus are entirely engaging (in terms of the viewer’s interaction with the subject), but in very different ways.
In Giorgione’s piece, the woman is asleep on the ground outside. Her location is somewhat ambiguous as it gives the sense of a hidden, perhaps mystical setting (though there are buildings in the background, which to me suggest that she is not completely isolated). Since she is asleep, it puts the viewer in a position where they may gaze upon her figure without receiving a reciprocated stare. We could potentially be “spying” on her. And in some ways I feel as though this objectifies her body- we can examine her as she lies still and tranquil, becoming captivated by her beauty without her even “knowing it”. And some may argue that by nature this interaction places the viewer in a position of power.
The manner of our engagement with Titian’s Venus is much different. In this painting, the subject is not sprawled out in the grass of some greenish, dream-like landscape, but instead we find her in what appears to be her own home (bedroom). This painting feels more provocative and sexual to me because the woman is in bed, nude and touching/covering? her pubic area, and is staring directly at the viewer. Or maybe it is not necessarily sexual- but the matter-of-factness expressed by her face suggests that she is more in control. She is staring right back at me, making me feel as though perhaps I could be exposed and under inspection just as she is. And there is something temptress-like about this image because she is exposing her entire body in a sensual manner, but is watching you (the viewer) as you gaze upon it.
A good example to illustrate this distinction I speak of is the way we will “rest” on a certain part of either painting. In "Sleeping Venus" I feel comfortable investigating the woman’s body and am not particularly drawn to her face. I can take my time and rest my eyes on any part of her form. In contrast, when viewing "Venus of Urbino" I begin to scan the subject's body only finding myself immediately drawn back to her face. Not so much because I have some desire to look at it, but instead because I feel that she is aware of my gaze. Of course in reality I have the power to look at any part of this painting for however long I please, but my response reminded me of the way artists can evoke powerful, and at times complex interations between their viewer and subject by incorporating these very intentional details.
…I’m also curious about how a male viewer may or may not respond similarly. What do people think about that?
This is just a piece of information I came across earlier when I was studying art history. During the early years, artists loved to paint women - more like, nude women as they thought nudity symbolised purity (or something in that line of thought). And since in that period women were considered pure and sublime, we come across a lot of paintings were women are either nude or scantily clad. I am not entirely sure of the credibility of this fact, but just thought it to be interesting. Also, it (I guess) let's us look at these paintings from a different perspective.
I get a real sense of male dominance in Titian's work. (at least with the ones that we have seen in class) The female figures he portrays seem to be looking for approval from either the male in the painting (as in Noli Me Tangere, The Three Ages of Man, and even in Assumption) or from the viewer.
In regards to the first three, the women are all leaning into the male figures and essentially offering themselves respectively to each. They look towards the male with an expression of longing, seeking approval.
Contrastingly, in the case of the Venus of Urbino, she is looking for approval from the viewer... or in a more immediate sense, Titian himself, while he was painting her. The soft look on her face and the way her head is slightly turned and cockeyed reads, at least to me, as submissive, or shy... and looking for someone to repond to her.
Contextually, this idea of male superiority and the submissive, or servant-like nature of women makes sense. Women were not repected as equals until long after Titian's oils dried. Further, Titian worked by commission. Patrons, I would assume in that time period were mostly male and Titian wisely, whether it was intentional or not, catered to them and the idea of male dominance.
Alex commented on the woman in "Venus of Urbino" appearing submissive or shy. In response, I think it's important to consider that the way the woman looks in the painting is not necessarily the same as the way she looked "in real life". Titian, as all painters do, had control over the way he portrayed his model- and he could very well have made her appear more submissive, provocative, etc. due to his own ideas or desires (or those of his patrons, as Alex pointed out).
The woman who was modeling may have been making a completely different facial expression, so to what extent can we assume that a painting is an "accurate" portrayal of a subject? (And does this even matter?)
There are many similarities between Titian's Venus of Urbino and Giorgione's Sleeping Venus, yet what separates the women in these paintings for me is the position they are lying and most importantly, the positions of their right arm. In the Venus of Urbino, the woman is leaning up on her arm and tempting the viewer to gaze upon her (this depiction of the woman seems very surprising for the time period which may be one of the reasons behind Manet's interpretation which Cleighton brought up earlier).
In Giorgione's Sleeping Venus, the woman's arm is resting behind her head, making her appear very vulnerable. She would not seem to expect anyone to notice her here. I feel like this painting probably fits more with the time period in which it was painted. I definitely felt that this woman had less power than the woman in Titian's Venus of Urbino. It seems like she could be caught off guard at any moment whereas the Venus of Urbino is expecting that others will look at her.
In my opinion I find that with only 28 years separating the paintings, the "Venus of Urbino" is a much better painting.
The colors in "Sleeping Venus" are muddied a bit and there doesn't seem to be a focused light source. There are strong highlights on the light colored cloth that Venus is lying on yet she has almost no highlights on her skin as well as the red cloth that she is reclining against.
Where as it Titan's painting there is a better use of lighting that is more evenly distributed across the painting.
I do find it interesting that you have this woman with almost a come hither look and yet she still slight look of innocents to her.
As I read up on the comparison of the two paintings I found it perplexing that so many people in their reviews were upset over the position of her left hand.
It is in the exact same position as in the "Sleeping Venus". The biggest difference that I can see between the two is that Titan made the hand more defined where as Giorgione seemed to neglect defining the details of the hand.
I really don't think it was the position of that hand that disturbed people as much as the look on her face.
Even though the "Venus of Urbino" was such a controversial painting for its time I feel that the artist portrayed his talent well with this painting. The colors are bright, the details are are wonderfully done, and over all it is a much more appealing painting for me. i hope to have the chance to see it in person some day.
I enjoy examining “The Bacchanal of the Andrians” because of its complexity and vibrancy. While some older paintings seem to have figures with distorted features this painting has beautiful figures in a range of different positions. The celebration has two characters that look out of place. First I notice the young child pulling up his white shirt, he doesn’t seem to have a companion or parent. Next I notice the old man in the upper right hand corner. He seems to be either laughing, in pain, or asleep. It seems ambiguous what he is doing but what is clear is he isn’t enjoying the celebration and is separated from the group. The dark clouds over him suggest doom. What I enjoy most about this painting is how all the adults dance and mingle to form an image like puzzle peaces connected.
Hi
I am thinking that the first painting was not all too scandalous and that the second painting was not so much scandalous as indulgent. The third painting is good (as in not scandalous), but I wonder if I were a person back then would it just go by my eyes...as I am curious as to how much the average person is exposed to religious works of art...I wonder if a persons' economic class made a difference in their ability to view religious pieces of work...
The other two paintings would appear scandalous to me if I were a child during that time period and as an adult I would find them as inappropriate and rude. I feel that it is not only the nude figure that creates these feelings it is how the figure is portrayed. The women both look like they are feeling quite nice, as if their sexuality is fully in tune with the environment around them. Cleighton mentioned that the Venus of Urbino painting was more provocative ( in comparison to a previous painting done by Gorgione)...and this too appears to be apparent to me to. It seems that the scandal is not fully in the nude figure, but also, lies in the amount of sexuality that is being portrayed through the women. For example, in the second to last painting the women is sprawled under the sun...letting the light bathe her body. It could be compared to a cat in heat just lying on the driveway waiting for the next-door neighbor cat to catch on. In the last painting, the women is not simply covering her genitalia, she is cupping it. In thinking, it seems that her hand alone could control a lot of the possible scandalous tension within the painting. If her hand was straight, rigid, her fingers spread as if to cover more of her genitalia it would also alert the viewer to not look OR think about what lies under her hand.
If she were covering one of her breast and her genitalia, instead of just having her chest out without shame, that posture would again give of the idea of modesty, shyness, discomfort, etc...
The subtle cupping of her hand is almost inviting and when combined with the strong and direct gaze and lazily tilted head she looks as if she is ready seduce the viewer, or at least tempt...strike the imagination and so forth.
The gaze of the women seems to have affected our class, and many art historians as well. It seems that sometimes people thoroughly enjoy a work more when they feel like they are a part of what the work. None of other paintings have figures that communicate with the viewer...but in the last painting we are in the room with her, trying to understand her pose ( and in doing this Titian's possible thoughts about women, or what the work meant...who it was for etc...).
Another part of the scandal is that the women makes you feel slightly scandalous for being there ( as a viewer) , as if you opened the wrong door and are now trying to make yourself and the women understand why you actually opened that wrong door. In contrast, the women in the bottom right corner of the second to last painting appears to be enjoying her nudeness and possibly her sexuality, her lack of eye contact with the viewer allows it to be a far less provocative painting...as if her head was tilted to the side and looking at the viewer...people would focus entirely on her...the dancers and gay couples and such would be entirely background to not even her body, but to her gaze.
There is much reflection into the "life style" of the "rich and famous" during Titian's painting career. It appears to have been some very risque, fun, stresful, controverial times and experiences.
I have learned that the reclinging female figure was not used very much, if at all, during the Ancient Greek and Roman periods of art. It was, tho, featured in anicent art of other civilizations.
The gentleman named Giorgione supposedly used the female figure, and it was from his lead that Titan, as his rival, took his lead.
"Venus" became a generic term for the female nude. Painters, used the name to create some sense of respectability for the apparent lustful and erotic poses. The contrast between the light, white flesh and the dark area around this
body, accentuate the lushness of the human body during this period. I am supposing it is the curves, and softness that are so enticing as welll as the sense of warmth and emotional nurturing that could go on with a woman in this pose, be you a small child or a grown adult. Woman's bodies have been studied since the beginning of time. I only recall, and this is not entirely accurate, but just a thought, it was Michaelangelo that spent some time studying the male figure. selene
Post a Comment