Hernandez 1

ARTH112

Danielle Hernandez

April 13, 2012

First Draft

Something Old and Something New: Comparing Michelangelo and Duchamp

In the study of Art History, it is important not to compartmentalize periods and artists.

There are no boxes, labeled “Botticelli” or “Donatello,” sealed, then left behind a locked door in

the room of “Early Renaissance.” Art is not just physical dimensions to be separated and

categorized. They are ideas that float and permeate endlessly- long after their creators have died.

The influence that art and artists can have on each other across time and land is incredible. So

how do two artists- Michelangelo and Marcel Duchamp- who lived four centuries apart compare

and contrast with one another in their works of art and their philosophies?

History is known to repeat itself and Art History is no exception. Artists throughout

history have built on each other’s works and have had influences that cross over seas and

centuries. The styles of antiquity came back in the late eighteenth century in Neoclassicism. The

Arch of Titus clearly set the framework for the famous Arc de Triomphe and the new government

buildings in America borrowed heavily from Greco-Roman temples. Antiquity even stretches out

to today as we see similarities between Trajan’s Column, made in 112 AD, and Brancusi’s

Endless Column in 1937. Similarly, the nineteenth century Gothic revival brought about

construction of soaring Cathedrals like those built in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Cubist Picasso drew inspiration from tribal African art and Post-Impressionist Van Gogh was

heavily influenced by Japanese prints that were gaining Western prominence at the time.1 The

comparison between Michelangelo and Duchamp is less visibly observable. Their works do not

1 Adams, Laurie. Art Across Time Volume II. Boston : McGraw-Hill, 2011.

Hernandez 2

at all seem similar in form, or even content, at first glance. However, a look at the context in

which each man painted and their philosophies behind what they did can reveal similarities and

differences which may usually have been overlooked.

Michelangelo was born into a rather poor family where his parents tried to dissuade him

from pursuing art. He was expected to get a job as a government official like his father. It was

stable and suitable to someone of his social standing. However, Michelangelo entered into two

consecutive apprenticeships beginning at age thirteen. He learned the trade but was particularly

drawn toward sculpture. He was known to spend time practicing this craft in the Medici’s

renowned sculpture garden. It was there that he began his lifelong relationship with the patron

family. Michelangelo achieved celebrity status during his lifetime much like celebrity status

today. People collected autographs, were interested in his personal life, and numerous

biographies were written. 2 Most of all, he was very receptive of his fame. He saw a parallel

between God’s ability to create and his ability to create and liked to use the title Il Divino. Such

an attitude is seen when he admits to an autobiographical element in The Creation of Adam.3

Characteristically, Michelangelo was a Renaissance man. He liked to experiment with

myriad mediums, but his preference was three-dimensional art. Although he experimented often

and used multimedia in his art work, his preference was marble for his sculptures and for two-

dimensional paintings, he preferred fresco (since he was so influenced by fresco painting like

those at Brancacci chapel in his youth). Michelangelo primarily considered himself a sculpture

artist. He was heavily influenced by Early Renaissance works by Giotto, Masaccio, and his

mentor Ghirlandaio. During his time at the Medici estate, he formed most of his ideas about

2 "Michelangelo Buonarroti." Authors and Artists for Young Adults. Vol. 43. Detroit: Gale, 2002. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.3 Geraldine A. Johnson. Renaissance Art. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. p.123

Hernandez 3

philosophy that carried into his paintings and it was there that he began learning about

Humanism and Neoplatonic thought.4

Michelangelo’s philosophy was largely influenced by Humanism and Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonic thought was very popular amongst his contemporaries, as well, yet no one seemed

to epitomize it as well as Michelangelo. He lived and breathed Plato ever since it was introduced

to him by his teacher, Poliziano, and also read Dante’s Divine Comedy with Platonic

annotations. It influenced every aspect of his work and worked “as a metaphysical justification

of his own self.” His interest in aesthetic beauty reflected the Platonic idea of a presence of the

spiritual in material. His brooding imagery of tortured souls was reflective of the idea that this

world is unreal and imperfect.5

Marcel Duchamp had a reasonably nice childhood. He was very affectionate towards his

siblings and his father, yet his relationship with his mother was not good at all. His older brother

changed his name and became an artist and Duchamp followed suit at age ten when he entered

school for art. He then moved to Paris at age seventeen to continue painting. Duchamp began

experimenting with many styles including Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism,

Symbolism, and, most importantly, Cubism. His first Cubist painting was based on works by his

own brother and was only done when he started moving from being an indifferent apprentice to

being a radical in the art world. He was often left out of the mainstream and didn’t really gain

much fame until later in the 20th century when young people realized that Picasso was now “too

old.” However, he did gain quite some recognition from the controversy he stirred up by

challenging the notion of what art is. Most famous is the controversy he caused with his Nude

4 Gale Biography in Context5 William E. Wallace. Michelangelo: Selected Readings. New York: Garland Pub., 1999. pp.566-568

Hernandez 4

Descending Stairs at the Armory Show. 6 This work was influenced by new multiple exposure

photography, Cubism, and his fascination with kinetics (in relation to machines). It built upon

the Cubist idea of rejecting art as a craft but also proposed the notion of art as an idea through art

itself.7 So it was not Cubism and many did not take to it kindly. One remark by Julian Street was

that it looked like an exploding shingle factory.8

Duchamp also challenged the norms by using a lot of multimedia and unconventional

mediums. He didn’t stop at oil, pencil, and ink. He used anything from cardboard to his own

semen, to create his artwork. Most importantly, he aimed to never create the same thing twice.

As for his notability, Duchamp was very indifferent about his status as a painter… or as

anything, for that matter. He referred to himself once as just being a “breather.” In his interview

with Pierre Cabanne, he denied being associated with any movement- Cubist, Futurist, etc.

Similarly, he seemed to always be indifferent about influences. When asked if he was influenced

by any of the great masters, he stated that he wasn’t really familiar with any of them to that great

extent.9

Though he refused to put himself under any movement’s umbrella, Duchamp was most

influenced by Cubism. However, he diverged from the mainstream movement. He became

fascinated with the concept of incorporating science and motion into his Cubism (while keeping

it distinctly different from the Italian Futurists who were also concerned with the idea of

kinetics).10

6 Calvin Tomkins. Duchamp: a Biography. New York : Henry Holt, 1996.: pp.15-847 David Cottington. Cubism. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. p.758 Tomkins 1179 Pierre Cabanne. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp. New York, Viking Press, 1971. 7110 "Marcel Duchamp." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

Hernandez 5

Inevitably, the two artists had some

similarities. The first obvious similarity was the

fascination by both men with science.

Michelangelo was fascinated primarily by anatomy.

2 He performed dissections that went even deeper

than skeletal structure which is suggested by the

shape of the human brain surrounding the figure of

God in Creation of Adam. Duchamp was also

fascinated by science- primarily by kinetics. He

was influenced by the invention of the multiple-

exposure camera that took a number of photos of a

moving subject on a single slide. He said of motion: “When you wanted to show an airplane in

flight, you didn’t paint a still life. The movement of form in time inevitably ushered us into

geometry and mathematics.”11 His subsequent mechanical preciseness mirrors Michelangelo’s

preciseness in muscle systems and anatomy.

The two also have similar philosophies. In regards to Humanism, just as Michelangelo

shifted a focus from God to Man in displaying just how much Man is capable of, Duchamp also

believed in the incredible capabilities of man. He describes himself in the terms of a “human-

machine-” unstoppable and limitless.12 Also, Duchamp was not interested, like the Futurists

were, in depicting motion. Although he never explicitly linked himself to Neoplatonism, he

showed some elements of it. For instance, he had interest in depicting the idea of motion in his

kinetic works rather than an actual illusion of motion. This is more in line with Michelangelo's

11 Cabanne 3112 Linda Dalrymple Henderson. Duchamp in Context : Science and Technology in the Large Glass and Related Works. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1998.

Hernandez 6

use of Neoplatonic themes beneath his paintings' actual forms. 2A more indirect link that may

explain some commonality in their philosophies was the fact that Duchamp was an admirer of

Piero de Cosimo who was, like Michelangelo, heavily influenced by Savonarola.13 Michelangelo

and Duchamp were also both influenced by religion. Especially towards the end of

Michelangelo’s career, he began depicting a lot of religious imagery (i.e. Fall of Man, Jeremiah,

and various Pietás.) Similarly, Duchamp, in accordance with Apollinaire’s stress on allegorical

imagery’s importance, began to apply religious underlying meanings to various works. His

biomechanical Bride and mechanical Bachelors were given a secondary identity as the Virgin

Mary or the Bride of Christ.14

Both men also experimented with a vast variety of media. Michelangelo was a stereotypic

Renaissance man while Duchamp saw repetition of the same thing “as a form of masturbation”

(being referred to negatively in this case).15 The two both were ready to challenge conventions.

This can be seen for Michelangelo as he changed his style and adapted more Mannerist

principles and it can be seen for Duchamp as he challenged Cubism, Futurism, and art’s

definition, in general. Michelangelo was quick to move along with the changing tide of art and

Duchamp was often ahead of it. Finally, in content, both men seem to portray autobiographical

sorrow. Michelangelo was often very unhappy and he reflected this in the brooding and heavy

emotions depicted in his artwork. We have come to know this about him because it was recorded

in the newly budding study of art history (which brought along celebrity status for some

painters).16 Duchamp admitted that his Sad Young Man in a Train was symbolic of himself.17

13 Cabanne 7114 Henderson 18015 Francis M. Naumann and Marcel Duchamp. Marcel Duchamp: the Art of Making Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Ghent: Ludion Press; New York, 1999. p. 1516 Johnson 120-13317 Cabanne 33

Hernandez 7

These two painters have quite a lot in common, but they wouldn’t agree on everything.

Michelangelo did have some focus, toward the end of his career, in more philosophical,

Neoplatonic themes below the form of his art.18 However, he was interested in the visual

products which are clear when he flees from his commission to paint the Sistine Chapel because

he was a sculptor- not a painter.2 Duchamp said: "I am interested in ideas--not merely the visual

products. I want to put painting once again to the service of the mind."19 This interest in the

finished visual product also relates to their differences in the methodology of coming to a final

stage of production. Although both men strived to produce “effortless” artwork, both of them did

not succeed. All of Michelangelo’s work was very labor intensive, yet he tried to make it seem

effortless. Savonarola epitomized this idea of effortless artwork and, being a huge admirer of

Savonarola, Michelangelo took this to heart. He understood painting and sculpting to be labor

intensive, but he also truly believed that a good artist can “toss off a skillful creation with a

minimum labour.”20 However, he never really achieved this. In efforts to try to make his work

faster and less labor intense, he painted many frescoes which forced him to work quickly. When

he, however, realized he could not put in any less effort, he began to burn preliminary sketches to

hide the evidence of more work being put into a final work. There is even a story that

Michelangelo once thought a friend of his noticed a leg that he’d repainted and, therefore,

intentionally dropped the lamp so that it was too dark to see it.21 Duchamp, on the other hand,

truly became effortless. He got to a point where he would strive to create art by using his own

hands as little as possible hence the emergence of his “readymade art” which was not altered by

him at all.

18 Stephens, J. N. The Italian Renaissance : the Origins of Intellectual and Artistic Change Before the Reformation. London ; New York : Longman, 1990. pp. 37-5319 Gale Biography in Context20 Wallace 63521 Wallace 633-637

Hernandez 8

A Renaissance painter like Michelangelo would have emphasized clarity and

rationalism. He did so by creating closed, compact, works with repeating motifs, clear diagonals,

and extreme contrast between open and closed spaces.22 Duchamp challenged the status of art as

a passive thing to be observed and told about. He created art that was open to interpretation and

sometimes interactive. For example, the command that lies in the title To Be Looked at (from the

Other Side of the Glass) with One Eye, Close to, for Almost an Hour tells the viewer how to

experience it, but not what it is. 23

The two, although both enjoyed experimenting, would probably argue over it.

Michelangelo was, after all, primarily a commissioned artist so he painted what people wanted

for the most part. Duchamp tried very hard not to concern himself with what people liked rather

than what he felt moved to do. Again, this was evident in his nonchalant attitude during his

interview with Cabanne.

To be able to experience and better understand these similarities and differences, I’ve

focused on Duchamp’s Nude Descending Stairs No. 2. Since this particular painting was in a

style that he worked with often and because it was so scandalous, I’ve decided to contemplate it

with Michelangelo in mind. At the International Exhibition of Modern Art in New York in 1913,

Nude roused up a large amount of criticism. It seemed to be good-natured, yet it did start many

conversations. The painting was difficult to understand and the fact that its subject was a nude

and that the title was on the painting itself did not help. These were not norms.24 Someone even

wrote a short poem to describe it:

22 Wallace 560-56123 Baruchello, Gianfranco, and Henry Martin. Why Duchamp : An Essay on Aesthetic Impact. New Paltz, NY : McPherson, 1985.24 Tomkins 116-117

Hernandez 9

You’ve tied to find herAnd you’ve looked in vainUp the picture and down again,You’ve tried to fashion her of broken bits,And you’ve worked yourself into seventeen fits;The reason you’ve failed to tell you I can,It isn’t a lady but only a man.25

What would Michelangelo have thought? Given their similar philosophies, he probably

would have been fascinated by it with proper explanation. Yet what I would like to explore is

how he would have gone about creating a painting to deliver the same message. To begin, I

focused on eliminating confusion by using just one frame of motion. I chose the frame the

furthest to the right because capturing her at the end of her descent would have seemed most

effective. The difficulty lies in creating the illusion of motion without Duchamp’s multiple

exposures effect. In this regard, I followed the methods Michelangelo used to depict movement:

curves, twisting bodies, a lot of contrast between open and closed space, and repetition through

grouping of curves and motifs. I also kept the same underlying structure as the original (see

attached visual analysis), but needed to change the perspective slightly. There are multiple

vantage points- one for the figure, one for one set of stairs in Nude, and yet another for the stairs

in the background/forefront. I also tried to keep the color scheme relatively the same. Of course,

I also added more anatomical realism to my painting of Nude.

What I could not replicate was the model Michelangelo would have probably used.

Michelangelo would have used a male model since that was what was available to him (and this

is very obvious in his masculine depictions of women such as those in Night and Day or Fall of

Man). So I used myself as a model which resulted in a more feminine woman.

25 Tomkins 117Written as a part of a contest hosted by American Art News for who could write the best description for Nude Descending Stairs.

Hernandez 10

Each of these things that I altered in the process of planning and painting Nude helped

exemplify the similarities in philosophy but differences in form between Marcel Duchamp and

Michelangelo. Now, I definitely see them as being able to have interest and inspiration drawn

from the same source. They even have similar aftereffects on viewers. The technique, however,

is very different. It is obvious that the two could have easily gotten along but each would secretly

believe that they were doing it “the right way.”

Hernandez 11

Works Cited

Baruchello, Gianfranco, and Henry Martin. Why Duchamp : An Essay on Aesthetic Impact. New

Paltz, NY : McPherson, 1985.

Cabanne, Pierre. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp. New York, Viking Press, 1971.

Cottington, David. Cubism. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Henderson, Linda Dalrymple. Duchamp in Context : Science and Technology in the Large Glass

and Related Works. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1998.

Johnson, Geraldine A. Renaissance Art. Oxford ; New York : Oxford

University Press, 2005.

"Marcel Duchamp." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Gale Biography In

Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

Naumann, Francis M., and Marcel Duchamp. Marcel Duchamp : the Art of Making Art in the

Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Ghent : Ludion Press ; New York : Distributed by

Harry N. Abrams, 1999.

Stephens, J. N. The Italian Renaissance : the Origins of Intellectual and Artistic Change Before

the Reformation. London ; New York : Longman, 1990.

Tomkins, Calvin. Duchamp : a Biography. New York : Henry Holt, 1996.