Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Style of Art Is the Birth of Venus

What Style of Art Is the Birth of Venus

Painting past Sandro Botticelli

Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus (c. 1484–1486). Tempera on canvas. 172.v cm × 278.nine cm (67.9 in × 109.vi in). Uffizi, Florence

Detail: the face of Venus

The Birth of Venus (Italian: Nascita di Venere [ˈnaʃʃita di ˈvɛːnere]) is a painting past the Italian artist Sandro Botticelli, probably executed in the mid 1480s. It depicts the goddess Venus arriving at the shore subsequently her nascence, when she had emerged from the sea fully-grown (chosen Venus Anadyomene and often depicted in art). The painting is in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy.

Although the 2 are not a pair, the painting is inevitably discussed with Botticelli's other very large mythological painting, the Primavera, also in the Uffizi. They are among the most famous paintings in the world, and icons of the Italian Renaissance; of the ii, the Birth is improve known than the Primavera.[i] As depictions of subjects from classical mythology on a very large scale they were virtually unprecedented in Western art since classical antiquity, every bit was the size and prominence of a nude female person effigy in the Birth. It used to be thought that they were both commissioned past the same member of the Medici family unit, simply this is now uncertain.

They have been endlessly analysed past art historians, with the main themes beingness: the emulation of ancient painters and the context of nuptials celebrations (generally agreed), the influence of Renaissance Neo-Platonism (somewhat controversial), and the identity of the commissioners (non agreed). Most art historians agree, however, that the Birth does non require complex analysis to decode its meaning, in the way that the Primavera probably does. While there are subtleties in the painting, its primary meaning is a straightforward, if individual, handling of a traditional scene from Greek mythology, and its entreatment is sensory and very attainable, hence its enormous popularity.[two]

Clarification and discipline [edit]

In the center the newly-born goddess Venus stands nude in a giant scallop beat out. The size of the shell is purely imaginary, and is also establish in classical depictions of the subject.[3] At the left the wind god Zephyr blows at her, with the current of air shown by lines radiating from his mouth. He is in the air, and carries a immature female, who is also blowing, but less forcefully. Both take wings. Vasari was probably correct in identifying her as "Aura", personification of a lighter breeze.[4] Their articulation efforts are blowing Venus towards the shore, and blowing the hair and wearing apparel of the other figures to the right.[5]

At the right a female figure who may be floating slightly above the ground holds out a rich cloak or dress to cover Venus when she reaches the shore, as she is about to do. She is ane of the three Horae or Hours, Greek minor goddesses of the seasons and of other divisions of time, and attendants of Venus. The floral decoration of her dress suggests she is the Hora of Leap.[6]

Alternative identifications for the 2 secondary female figures involve those likewise found in the Primavera; the nymph held by Zephyr may be Chloris, a flower nymph he married in some versions of her story, and the effigy on land may be Flora.[seven] Flora is more often than not the Roman equivalent of the Greek Chloris; in the Primavera Chloris is transformed into the figure of Flora next to her, following Ovid's Fasti,[eight] but it is difficult to meet that such a transformation is envisaged here. However, the roses diddled along with the two flying figures would be advisable for Chloris.

The subject area is not strictly the "Birth of Venus", a title given to the painting only in the nineteenth century (though given as the subject by Vasari), merely the side by side scene in her story, where she arrives on land, blown past the current of air. The land probably represents either Cythera or Cyprus, both Mediterranean islands regarded by the Greeks equally territories of Venus.[9]

Technical [edit]

The painting is large, but slightly smaller than the Primavera, and where that is a panel painting, this is on the cheaper support of canvas. Canvass was increasing in popularity, possibly especially for secular paintings for country villas, which were decorated more than simply, cheaply and cheerfully than those for metropolis palazzi, being designed for pleasance more than than ostentatious entertainment.[10]

The painting is on 2 pieces of canvas, sewn together before starting, with a gesso ground tinted blue. There are differences to Botticelli's usual technique, working on panel supports, such as the lack of a green first layer nether the flesh areas. There are a number of pentimenti revealed by mod scientific testing. The Hora originally had "depression classical sandals", and the collar on the mantle she holds out is an reconsideration. The hair of Venus and the flying couple was changed. There is heavy utilise of gilt as a pigment for highlights, on hair, wings, textiles, the crush and the mural. This was all obviously practical after the painting was framed. Information technology was finished with a "cool gray varnish", probably using egg yolk.[xi] [12]

As in the Primavera, the dark-green paint – used for the wings of Zephyr, Zephyr's companion, and the leaves of the orange trees on the country – has darkened considerably with exposure to light over fourth dimension, somewhat distorting the intended balance of colours. Parts of some leaves at the top right corner, ordinarily covered by the frame, have been less affected.[xiii] The blues of the sea and sky have also lost their effulgence.[fourteen]

Style [edit]

Although the pose of Venus is classical in some respects, and borrows the position of the easily from the Venus Pudica type in Greco-Roman sculptures (see section below), the overall handling of the figure, continuing off-centre with a curved body of long flowing lines, is in many respects from Gothic art. Kenneth Clark wrote: "Her differences from antique form are non physiological, simply rhythmic and structural. Her whole body follows the bend of a Gothic ivory. It is entirely without that quality and then much prized in classical art, known as aplomb; that is to say, the weight of the torso is non distributed evenly either side of a fundamental plumb line. .... She is not standing but floating. ... Her shoulders, for example, instead of forming a sort of architrave to her torso, as in the antique nude, run downwards into her arms in the same unbroken stream of movement every bit her floating hair."[xv]

Venus' trunk is anatomically improbable, with elongated neck and body. Her pose is incommunicable: although she stands in a classical contrapposto stance, her weight is shifted likewise far over the left leg for the pose to be held. The proportions and poses of the winds to the left do not quite make sense, and none of the figures bandage shadows.[16] The painting depicts the earth of the imagination rather than being very concerned with realistic depiction.[17]

Ignoring the size and positioning of the wings and limbs of the flying pair on the left, which carp some other critics, Kenneth Clark calls them:

...perhaps the most beautiful instance of ecstatic motility in the whole of painting. ... the suspension of our reason is achieved by the intricate rhythms of the drapery which sweep and menstruum irresistibly effectually the nude figures. Their bodies, by an endless intricacy of embrace, sustain the current of movement, which finally flickers down their legs and is dispersed like an electric charge.[18]

Botticelli'due south fine art was never fully committed to naturalism; in comparison to his contemporary Domenico Ghirlandaio, Botticelli seldom gave weight and volume to his figures and rarely used a deep perspectival space.[xvi] Botticelli never painted landscape backgrounds with great detail or realism, merely this is peculiarly the instance here. The laurel copse and the grass below them are greenish with gold highlights, near of the waves regular patterns, and the landscape seems out of calibration with the figures.[19] The clumps of bulrushes in the left foreground are out of place here, every bit they come from a freshwater species.[twenty]

Dating and history [edit]

Information technology has long been suggested that Botticelli was commissioned to paint the piece of work by the Medici family of Florence, perhaps past Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici (1463–1503) a major patron of Botticelli, under the influence of his cousin Lorenzo de' Medici, "il Magnifico". This was first suggested by Herbert Horne in his monograph of 1908, the outset major modern piece of work on Botticelli, and long followed by most writers, only more than recently has been widely doubted, though it is still accepted by some. Various interpretations of the painting rely on this origin for its meaning. Although relations were perhaps always rather tense between the Magnifico and his immature cousins and wards, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco and his brother Giovanni di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, information technology may have been politic to commission a work that glorified the older Lorenzo, as some interpretations have it. In that location may be a deliberate ambiguity as to which Lorenzo was intended to be evoked. In later years hostility between the 2 branches of the family became overt.

Horne believed that the painting was commissioned shortly after the purchase in 1477 of the Villa di Castello, a country house outside Florence, by Lorenzo and Giovanni, to decorate their new house, which they were rebuilding. This was the year later their begetter died at the age of 46, leaving the young boys wards of their cousin Lorenzo il Magnifico, of the senior branch of the Medici family unit and de facto ruler of Florence.[21] There is no record of the original commission, and the painting is first mentioned by Vasari, who saw information technology, together with the Primavera, at Castello, some time earlier the starting time edition of his Lives in 1550, probably by 1530–40. In 1550 Vasari was himself painting in the villa, just he very perchance visited information technology before that. But in 1975 information technology emerged that, unlike the Primavera, the Nascence is not in the inventory, apparently consummate, made in 1499 of the works of fine art belonging to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco'south co-operative of the family. Ronald Lightbown concludes that information technology only came to be endemic by the Medici after that. The inventory was just published in 1975, and fabricated many previous assumptions invalid.[22]

Horne dated the work at some point after the purchase of the villa in 1477 and before Botticelli's departure for Rome to bring together the painting of the Sistine Chapel in 1481. Recent scholars prefer a date of effectually 1484–86 on grounds of the work's identify in the evolution of Botticelli's style. The Primavera is now usually dated earlier, subsequently Botticelli'due south return from Rome in 1482 and mayhap around the time of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco's wedding in July 1482,[23] simply past some yet before Botticelli's departure.[24]

Whenever the two paintings were united at Castello, they have remained together ever since. They stayed in Castello until 1815, when they were transferred to the Uffizi. For some years until 1919 they were kept in the Galleria dell'Accademia, some other government museum in Florence.[25]

Interpretations [edit]

External video
Sandro Botticelli - The Birth of Venus (detail) - WGA2772.jpg
video icon Smarthistory – Botticelli's Birth of Venus [16]

Although in that location are aboriginal and modern texts that are relevant, no single text provides the precise imagery of the painting, which has led scholars to suggest many sources and interpretations.[26] Many art historians who specialize in the Italian Renaissance accept found Neoplatonic interpretations, of which two unlike versions have been articulated by Edgar Wind and Ernst Gombrich,[27] to be the primal to understanding the painting. Botticelli represented the Neoplatonic idea of divine love in the class of a nude Venus.[28]

For Plato – and so for the members of the Florentine Ideal Academy – Venus had two aspects: she was an earthly goddess who aroused humans to physical dear or she was a heavenly goddess who inspired intellectual love in them. Plato further argued that contemplation of concrete beauty immune the mind to better understand spiritual beauty. And so, looking at Venus, the most beautiful of goddesses, might at first raise a physical response in viewers which then lifted their minds towards the godly.[29] A Neoplatonic reading of Botticelli'due south Nascency of Venus suggests that 15th-century viewers would have looked at the painting and felt their minds lifted to the realm of divine dear.

The limerick, with a cardinal nude figure, and ane to the side with an arm raised above the caput of the kickoff, and winged beings in omnipresence, would have reminded its Renaissance viewers of the traditional iconography of the Baptism of Christ, mark the offset of his ministry building on earth. In a similar way, the scene shows here marks the kickoff of Venus's ministry building of dear, whether in a simple sense, or the expanded meaning of Renaissance Neoplatonism.[thirty]

More recently, questions have arisen nearly Neoplatonism as the dominant intellectual organization of late 15th-century Florence,[31] and scholars have indicated that in that location might be other ways to translate Botticelli'due south mythological paintings. In particular, both Primavera and Nascence of Venus have been seen as nuptials paintings that suggest appropriate behaviors for brides and grooms.[32]

The laurel copse at correct and laurel wreath worn by the Hora are punning references to the name "Lorenzo", though it is uncertain whether Lorenzo il Magnifico, the constructive ruler of Florence, or his young cousin Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco is meant. In the same way the flowers in the air effectually Zephyr and on the textiles worn and carried by the Hora evoke the name of Florence.[33]

Literary sources [edit]

Roman fresco from the "House of Venus" in Pompeii, 1st century Advertizing

The closest precedent for the scene is generally agreed to exist in one of the early on ancient Greek Homeric Hymns, published in Florence in 1488 past the Greek refugee Demetrios Chalkokondyles:

Of august gold-wreathed and cute
Aphrodite I shall sing to whose domain
vest the battlements of all sea-loved
Cyprus where, blown by the moist breath
of Zephyros, she was carried over the
waves of the resounding body of water on soft foam.
The gold-filleted Horae happily welcomed
her and clothed her with heavenly raiment.[34]

This verse form was probably already known to Botticelli's Florentine gimmicky, and Lorenzo di Medici'southward court poet, Angelo Poliziano. The iconography of The Nascency of Venus is like to a description of a relief of the event in Poliziano's poem the Stanze per la giostra, commemorating a Medici joust in 1475, which may also take influenced Botticelli, although there are many differences. For instance Poliziano talks of multiple Horae and zephyrs.[35] Older writers, post-obit Horne, posited that "his patron Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco asked him to paint a subject illustrating the lines",[36] and that remains a possibility, though one difficult to maintain then confidently today. Another poem by Politian speaks of Zephyr causing flowers to flower, and spreading their odor over the land, which probably explains the roses he blows forth with him in the painting.[37]

Ancient art [edit]

Having a large standing female nude as the central focus was unprecedented in post-classical Western painting, and certainly drew on the classical sculptures which were coming to calorie-free in this catamenia, specially in Rome, where Botticelli had spent 1481–82 working on the walls of the Sistine Chapel.[38] The pose of Botticelli's Venus follows the Venus Pudica ("Venus of Modesty") type from classical antiquity, where the hands are held to encompass the breasts and groin; in classical art this is non associated with the new-born Venus Anadyomene. What became a famous instance of this type is the Venus de' Medici, a marble sculpture that was in a Medici collection in Rome past 1559, which Botticelli may have had opportunity to report (the date it was found is unclear).[39]

The painter and the humanist scholars who probably advised him would have recalled that Pliny the Elder had mentioned a lost masterpiece of the celebrated ancient Greek painter, Apelles, representing Venus Anadyomene (Venus Ascension from the Sea). According to Pliny, Alexander the Dandy offered his mistress, Campaspe, as the model for the nude Venus and later, realizing that Apelles had fallen in love with the girl, gave her to the artist in a gesture of extreme magnanimity. Pliny went on to note that Apelles' painting of Pankaspe as Venus was afterward "dedicated past Augustus in the shrine of his father Caesar." Pliny too stated that "the lower part of the painting was damaged, and information technology was impossible to find anyone who could restore it. ... This flick decayed from historic period and rottenness, and Nero ... substituted for it another painting by the hand of Dorotheus".[40]

Pliny too noted a second painting by Apelles of Venus "superior even to his earlier one," that had been begun by the artist but left unfinished. The Roman images in diverse media showing the new-born Venus in a behemothic shell may well be rough derivative versions of these paintings. Botticelli could non have seen the frescos unearthed after in Pompeii, but may well have seen modest versions of the motif in terracotta or engraved gems. The "Firm of Venus" in Pompeii has a life-size fresco of Venus lying in the shell, also seen in other works; in almost other images she stands with her hands on her pilus, wringing the h2o from information technology, with or without a shell.

The two-dimensionality of this painting may be a deliberate attempt to evoke the style of aboriginal Greek vase painting or frescos on the walls of Etruscan tombs,[41] the but types of ancient painting known to Botticelli.

  • Greco-Roman statuary statuette

Mack [edit]

Some other interpretation of the Birth of Venus is provided by art historian and author, Charles R. Mack.[42] This interpretation takes much that is generally agreed, simply Mack goes on to explicate the painting as an allegory extolling the virtues of Lorenzo de' Medici.[43] This has non been adopted by Renaissance art historians in general,[44] and information technology remains problematic, since information technology depends on the painting existence commissioned by the Medici, yet the work is not documented in Medici hands until well into the following century.

Mack sees the scene every bit inspired past both the Homeric Hymn and the ancient paintings. But something more a rediscovered Homeric hymn was likely in the listen of the Medici family member who commissioned this painting from Botticelli. In one case once more, Botticelli, in his version of the Nascence of Venus, might be seen as completing the task begun by his ancient predecessor Apelles, fifty-fifty surpassing him. Giving added support to this interpretation of Botticelli as a born-again Apelles is the fact that that very merits was voiced in 1488 by Ugolino Verino in a poem entitled "On Giving Praise to the History of Florence."[45]

While Botticelli might well have been celebrated every bit a revivified Apelles, his Birth of Venus also testified to the special nature of Florence's principal citizen, Lorenzo de' Medici. Although information technology now seems that the painting was executed for another member of the Medici family, it likely was intended to gloat and flatter its head, Lorenzo de' Medici. Tradition associates the prototype of Venus in Botticelli's painting with the famous beauty Simonetta Cattaneo Vespucci, of whom popular legend claims both Lorenzo and his younger brother, Giuliano, were swell admirers. Simonetta was possibly born in the Ligurian seaside town of Portovenere ('the port of Venus'). Thus, in Botticelli'south interpretation, Pankaspe (the ancient living paradigm of Simonetta), the mistress of Alexander the Great (the Laurentian predecessor), becomes the lovely model for the lost Venus executed by the famous Greek painter Apelles (reborn through the recreative talents of Botticelli), which ended up in Rome, installed past Emperor Augustus in the temple dedicated to Florence's supposed founder Julius Caesar.

In the case of Botticelli'due south Birth of Venus, the suggested references to Lorenzo, supported by other internal indicators such equally the stand of laurel bushes at the correct, would have been just the sort of thing brainy Florentine humanists would have appreciated. Appropriately, by overt implication, Lorenzo becomes the new Alexander the Swell with an unsaid link to both Augustus, the outset Roman emperor, and even to Florence's legendary founder, Caesar himself. Lorenzo, furthermore, is not only magnificent only, every bit was Alexander in Pliny'due south story, also magnanimous, as well. Ultimately, these readings of the Nativity of Venus flatter not only the Medici and Botticelli but all of Florence, domicile to the worthy successors to some of the greatest figures of antiquity, both in governance and in the arts.[46]

These substantially pagan readings of Botticelli's Birth of Venus should non exclude a more purely Christian one, which may be derived from the Neoplatonic reading of the painting indicated above. Viewed from a religious standpoint, the nudity of Venus suggests that of Eve before the Autumn too equally the pure love of Paradise. In one case landed, the goddess of love will don the earthly garb of mortal sin, an deed that will pb to the New Eve – the Madonna whose purity is represented by the nude Venus. In one case draped in earthly garments she becomes a personification of the Christian Church which offers a spiritual send dorsum to the pure dear of eternal salvation. In this instance the scallop beat upon which this image of Venus/Eve/Madonna/Church stands may be seen in its traditionally symbolic pilgrimage context. Furthermore, the broad area of ocean serves every bit a reminder of the Virgin Mary's title stella maris, alluding both to the Madonna's name (Maria/maris) and to the heavenly body (Venus/stella). The sea brings forth Venus simply every bit the Virgin gives birth to the ultimate symbol of love, Christ.[47]

Rather than choosing one of the many interpretations offered for Botticelli's depiction of the Nascency (Inflow?) of Venus it might exist improve to view it from a variety of perspectives. This layered approach—mythological, political, religious—was intended.[48]

Derivative versions [edit]

Botticelli, or more probable his workshop, repeated the figure of Venus in another painting of nigh 1490. This life-sized work depicts a similar figure and pose, partially clad in a light blouse, and contrasted against a patently night background. It is in the Galleria Sabauda in Turin.[49] [50] There is another such workshop Venus in Berlin, and very likely others were destroyed in the "Bonfire of the Vanities". Examples seem to have been exported to France and Germany, probably influencing Lucas Cranach the Elderberry amidst others.[51]

More than a decade afterward, Botticelli adjusted the figure of Venus for a nude personification of "Truth" in his Calumny of Apelles. Hither one hand is raised, pointing to heaven for justification, and the figure's gaze too looks upwards; the whole effect is very unlike.[52]

  • Venus Anadyomene Rising from the Sea

    "Venus Rising from the Body of water" by Tiziano Vecellio (Titian) c. 1520-25

  • Venus Rising from the Sea past James McNeill Whistler, c. 1866-1870

  • by Gustave Moreau

Meet too [edit]

  • 100 Peachy Paintings

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ Ettlingers, 134; Legouix, 118
  2. ^ Ettlingers, 135–136; Lightbown, 160–162
  3. ^ For classical examples, meet below. Scallops were familiar Italian seafood, but their shells are never more than a few inches wide. The chief European species eaten are Pecten maximus and Pecten jacobaeus in the Mediterranean Sea. No Mediterranean crush is anything like this large, although various tropical giant clam species may reach half this width or more, with a rather dissimilar shape.
  4. ^ Lightbown, 153–156; 159; Wind, 131
  5. ^ Lightbown, 156
  6. ^ Lightbown, 156–159; Current of air, 131
  7. ^ Dempsey uses these identifications. Legouix, 21 argues for the traditional one for the female held by Zephyr.
  8. ^ Wind, 115–117
  9. ^ Lightbown, 159–160
  10. ^ Lightbown, 153
  11. ^ Lightbown, 153, 162–163, 163 quoted
  12. ^ St. Clair, Kassia (2016). The Hush-hush Lives of Colour. London: John Murray. p. 88. ISBN9781473630819. OCLC 936144129.
  13. ^ Lightbown, 162
  14. ^ Hemsoll, two:fifty
  15. ^ Clark, 97–98, 98 quoted; Ettlingers, 134
  16. ^ a b c "Botticelli'south Birth of Venus". Smarthistory at Khan University. Retrieved Dec xix, 2012.
  17. ^ Hemsoll, 18:xv
  18. ^ Clerk, 281–282
  19. ^ Ettlingers, 134
  20. ^ Lightbown, 323, annotation 11
  21. ^ Lightbown, 120–122
  22. ^ Lightbown, 122 (Primavera in the 1499 inventory), 152. In add-on, the writer on art known as the "Anonimo Gaddiano", from around 1540, speaks of "several" very fine Botticellis at Castello, which may confirm the Nascence was there.
  23. ^ Lightbown, 122, 153; Hartt, 333
  24. ^ Dempsey, Legouix, 115, 118
  25. ^ Legouix, 115–118
  26. ^ Amongst many interpretations start with: Aby Warburg, The Renewal of Pagan Artifact, trans. David Britt, Los Angeles, 1999, 405–431; Ernst H. Gombrich, "Botticelli's Mythologies: A Written report in the Neoplatonic Symbolism of his circumvolve," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, viii (1945) 7–threescore; Wind, Chapter Eight; Lightbown, 152–163; Frank Zollner, Botticelli: Images of Love and Spring, Munich, 1998, 82–91.
  27. ^ Dempsey, saying Current of air is "the most important and complete Neo-Ideal interpretation of Botticelli's mythological paintings".
  28. ^ Wind, Chapter VIII (Chapter VII on the Primavera); Stokstad, Marilyn Fine art History, Pearson
  29. ^ Plato, Symposium, 180–181, 210.
  30. ^ Hemsoll, 12:00; Hartt, 333
  31. ^ James Hankins, "The Myth of the Platonic University of Florence," Renaissance Quarterly, 44 (1991) 429–475.
  32. ^ Lilian Zirpolo, "Botticelli'southward Primavera: a Lesson for the Bride," Woman's Fine art Journal, 12/2 1991; Jane C. Long, "Botticelli's Birth of Venus as Wedding Painting," Aurora, 9 (2008) 1–26.
  33. ^ More clearly in the Latin Florentia ("flowering") than in the Italian Firenze. This was a Roman imperial rename, the metropolis having originally been Fluentia, for its two rivers. Hemsoll, 13:40; Hartt, 333
  34. ^ Mack, 2005, 85–86; Lightbown, 160
  35. ^ Lightbown, 159–160; Stanze de Messer Angelo Poliziano cominciate per la giostra del magnifico Giuliano di Pietro de Medici, I 99, 101, trans. David L. Quint, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1979.
  36. ^ Clark, 97 quoted; come across too Ettlingers, 134
  37. ^ Hemsoll, 7:40
  38. ^ Clark, 92, 96–97; Lightbown, 160, "the showtime surviving celebration of the beauty of the female nude represented for its own perfection rather than with erotic or moral or religious overtones."
  39. ^ Clark, 76–81; Dempsey
  40. ^ Pliny the Elder, Natural History, xxxv.86-87, 91.
  41. ^ Mack, 2005, 86–87
  42. ^ "Mack, Charles R. 1940–". world wide web.encyclopedia.com . Retrieved eighteen April 2021.
  43. ^ Mack (2005), 85–87 and too Mack (2002)
  44. ^ See, for example, Frank Zöllner, Sandro Botticelli, Munich, 2005; David Wilkins, A History of Italian Renaissance Art, Upper Saddle River, 2011, neither of whom follow Mack'south interpretation.
  45. ^ Mack, 2005, 86
  46. ^ Mack, 2005, 87
  47. ^ Mack (2002), 225–26
  48. ^ Mack (2002), 207, 226
  49. ^ Shea, Andrea (Apr xiv, 2017). "What 'Venus', Now At The MFA, Can Teach Us Near Renaissance Painter Sandro Botticelli". The ARTery. WBUR-FM. Retrieved 2017-04-24 .
  50. ^ "Botticelli and the Search for the Divine". Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. nineteen January 2017. Retrieved 2017-04-24 .
  51. ^ Clark, 101–102; Lightbown, 313–315
  52. ^ Clark, 99–100; Ettlingers, 145–146

References [edit]

  • Clark, Kenneth, The Nude, A Written report in Ideal Form, orig. 1949, various edns, page refs from Pelican edn of 1960
  • Dempsey, Charles, "Botticelli, Sandro", Grove Art Online, Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 15 May. 2017. subscription required.
  • "Ettlingers": Leopold Ettlinger with Helen S. Ettlinger, Botticelli, 1976, Thames and Hudson (Earth of Art), ISBN 0500201536
  • Hartt, Frederick, History of Italian Renaissance Art, (2nd edn.)1987, Thames & Hudson (US Harry N Abrams), ISBN 0500235104
  • Hemsoll, David, The Birth of Venus, University of Birmingham, 18 min introductory lecture, refs to mm:ss
  • Legouix, Susan, Botticelli, 115–118, 2004 (revd edn), Chaucer Press, ISBN 1904449212
  • Lightbown, Ronald, Sandro Botticelli: Life and Work, 1989, Thames and Hudson
  • Mack, Charles R. (2002),"Botticelli's Venus: Antiquarian Allusions and Medicean Propaganda," Explorations in Renaissance Culture, 28, 1 (Wintertime), 2002, 1–31.
  • Mack, Charles R. (2005), Looking at the Renaissance: Essays toward a Contextual Appreciation, Ann Arbor: Academy of Michigan Press, 2005
  • Wind, Edgar, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, 1967 edn., Peregrine Books

External links [edit]

  • Academy of Birmingham: Dr David Hemsoll, The Nascence of Venus – mini-lecture
  • ArtSleuth: The Nascency of Venus – That Obscure Object of Desire

kirtonwomand.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Venus