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.
Actually whether or not it is the Medici family pictured in an accurate depiction is irrelevant to the quality of the work. That is an extra-artistic factoid, that has nothing to do with the subject or the subject matter. Renoir painted his son in dresses and with long hair so he would look like a little girl. The paintings are of little girls with hair that curls in conformance with the composition of the picture. The fact that it is Jean Renoir or Chaim Soutine's Mother modeling is irrelevant to the work.
Who cares that these artists were flawed or even fallen? God used them to create some of the most beautiful works in human history. They did the work of the Lord and brought glory to Him and our faith, despite their shortcomings or the churchmen who commissioned them or where they were trained.
You keep mentioning Rafael's "School of Athens", yet neglect his other masterpieces including the magnificent "Transfiguration" which was done on his deathbed. Do you suppose he just wanted to kiss some secular rear-end and glorify greek paganism as his last act on earth?
So what if certain techniques and ideas were in some way an extension of Greek civilization. Art, science, literature, medicine, language and the United States of America all are the result on what has come before it. Humanity is progessive.
Some of us use the internet as a form of ministry. I suppose that someone, somewhere could say that the internet was invented by the US military, thereby rendering our works invalid or immoral.
In your cynicism, you see "The Passion" as an extension of a filmaker smitten by violent themes, when in reality it was the result of a man who risked his fortune, credibility and career in a leap of faith. In doing so he did more to spread the Gospel in a three hour film than the all of the 186 bishops in the USCCB have done in their entire careers.
Just as you see darkness Mel, you see not the greatness of Rembrandt's work, but focus on his "62" self portraits. You say that his "art is noteworthy for the lack of Catholic iconography it contained". Is "The Archangel Leaving the Family of Tobias", "Susanna and the Elders" and "Tobit and Anna" Catholic enough for you? None of these stories exist in the Protestant bible, much less their theology. You'll probably tell me that Rembrandt, as a sellout ward of the continuum held his nose to paint them.
Of course our works as humans are marred with imperfection and sin. Caravaggio was a rogue who killend a man. Rembrandt lead a lavish life that lead to bankruptcy. Van Gogh was a manic depressive given to neurotic episodes. You and I are both sinners who seek the Lord's mercy. Does this make our works for Him futile and petty?
Lighten up friend. We can bring glory to our Lord and spread the Gospel despite our fallen nature.