I agree with that assessment Chuck, buy your cynicism is also rude. For example:
The Church didn't teach them how to paint. It merely dictated what to paint-to an extent-for every religious theme there was also a "School of Athens" or "Primavera".
Who exactly are you referring to? Certainly not Caravaggio, Bellini, Rafael, Tintoretto or even Rembrandt because they don't have a vegetable or greek theme for every Biblical theme. Their secular works are few and far between while their religious works are vast. Probably 8 or 10 to 1 if I was forced to guess.
Caravaggio's greatest works were not done while the Church "dictated what to paint", but while he was on the run being wanted by the Church for murder. Have fun with Rembrandt, but despite any perceived flaws such masterpieces would have been impossible without deep inspiration. He also suffered a great deal throuhout his life. 'The Prodigal Son' was completed just after the last of his four children died, shortly before his own death.
Do you suppose Rafael is buried at the Pantheon because he did as he was told when the Church "dictated what to paint"?
I could go on, but perhaps you could point out these secular based, greek-inspired artists who merely created what the Church instructed.
Howdie A!
***Have fun with Rembrandt, but despite any perceived flaws such masterpieces would have been impossible without deep inspiration.***
It is true. And many of the works of the great masters still reach out to hearts and glorify God to this day.
But big picture wise, the Jews did not "do art". IMHO the making of renaissance art was not "inspired" by theology (though the subject surly was). The art of the renaissance is a reflourishment of Greek philosophy and the Greek search for beauty. This is why it falls on the heals of the Crusades when it was rediscovered.
*** I could go on, but perhaps you could point out these secular based, greek-inspired artists who merely created what the Church instructed.***
In the day, hardly anyone painted without a patron. The biggest patron was, of course, the Church. Patrons do dictate what is painted. The free-flowing artistic sentement is a product of a later period.
I'm referring to Michelangelo, Botticelli, and Raphael, but especially to the de Medici's who founded the Neoplatonic Academy and whose patronage was largely responsible for many of these guys' careers. The ceiling of the Sistine chapel is a depiction of Platonic metaphysics. Even in a religious painting such as Botticelli's "Adoration of the Magi" the de Medici clan are pictured as the worshipping kings. So, is the artist painting from Christian inspiration or secular flattery? Raphael's "School of Athens" is an overt depiction of the ideas that were influencing the culture's art. But since the mural was painted in the Vatican, the Church approved of it.
Of course these ideas and the novelties they led to were probably responsible in large part to the reformation when folks recognized that the Church was not completely espousing Christian ideals. The counter-reformation made religious art much more....Christian, thus Caraveggio, Bellini, and Tintoretto were not as pagan-influenced as their earlier counterparts.
As for Rembrandt, he couldn't possibly have been influenced and inspired by the Church, as he was brought up in a strict Anabaptist family and if anything his religious art is noteworthy for the lack of Catholic iconography it contained. He's most famous for his paintings of guild members and landscapes...and his 62 self-portraits. I don't know how or why he got brought into the discussion.
What I'm arguing against is the belief that the church had such a hold on people in previous eras that everything that they thought and did originated in the piety that the Church instilled. While perhaps true in some eras, like the high middle ages, and while true in some individuals no matter in what era, the Italian renaissance was not one of them, because of the abundance of other ideas; namely neoplatonism, neoclassicism, and humanism. Plus, there are varying eras within a man's lfetime as well. Will future generations view Mel Gibson's life's work as divinely inspired through the influence of his faith, because of one film, or will it rightly see him as reflecting the obsession with pictorial violence because of most of his films?
Another point is that we don't know what these heroes painted all the time. That their religous work was preserved in churches doesn't mean that they were exclusively religious artists, just that their religious art was better preserved.