Even though Emerson didn’t include Michelangelo in Representative Men, it is clear that he has much admiration and respect for the artist. If the world of arts were akin to Olympic gymnastics, Michelangelo is a gold medal winner in the all-around competition: painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry.
Emerson is greatly impressed by the man’s accomplishments and equally impressed by the man’s life. In his essay “Michael Angelo,” Emerson begins in a way that I thought would focus the essay almost entirely on Michelangelo’s poetry. (You can read a few sonnets if, like me, you’ve only ever paid attention to the visual art.) But that didn’t turn out to be the case. Emerson focuses on Beauty and Michelangelo’s biography.
Emerson doesn’t say anything new or different about Beauty–well new to us, maybe it wasn’t so new back when he wrote it originally. Beauty can’t be defined but it can be felt and produced. Beauty, like Truth, is the “ultimate aim of the human being.” Emerson believes there are two parts to Beauty, Taste, which is derived from our ability to take pleasure from Beauty; and Art, which is derived from the power of abstracting Beauty from things and reproducing it in new forms.
Emerson ties one’s ability to create Art directly to one’s ability to see and understand truth. Of course, Michelangelo had this ability in spades. One of the things that fed Michelagelo’s genius, according to Emerson, is that the artist never ceased to learn. Apparently one of Michelangelo’s last drawings was of an old man in a cart with an hour-glass and the motto Ancora imparo, “I still learn.” That is a motto I might need to inscribe on the shelf edge above my desk as I think it acts both as a reminder and as encouragement.
In addition to Michelangelo’s continuous learning, Emerson cites him as being “one of the most industrious men that ever lived.” Praise is also given for a lack of ego. Michelangelo never said everyone but me sucks, I am the only true artist. Instead, he found much to admire in his contemporaries and predecessors.
It seems in this essay, Emerson ultimately seeks to connect the beauty of Michelangelo’s art with the goodness of his character and person as if his devotion to his art fed his soul and vice versa:
He sought, through the eye, to reach the soul. Therefore, as, in the first place, he sought to approach the Beautiful by the study of the True, so he failed not to make the next step of progress, and to seek Beauty in its highest form, that of Goodness. The sublimity of his art is in his life. He did not only build a divine temple, and paint and carve saints and prophets. He lived out the same inspiration. There is no spot upon his fame.
Emerson doesn’t convince me that the life and the art are connected. His argument is weak and we have too many biographies or artists who created great art but were horrible people. Confronted with that kind of evidence, Emerson would likely find fault with the art as well as the person. It would be nice to be able to make a connection between genius and goodness. But then again, if great art required good people, we might not have much in the way of art.
Next week’s Emerson: Milton
This is very interesting, although I don’t think the idea of Michelangelo as lacking ego is accurate. He knew he was better than everyone else, and was not afraid to let, for example, the Pope know it. Emerson is glossing over certain details in Vasari.
Emerson translated some of Michelangelo’s poems – his translations are eccentric and superb. I mean, we may be getting as much of Emerson as of Michelangelo, but they’re great poems either way. They can all be found in the Library of America volume of Emerson’s verse. Very strongly recommended.
This sounds like an Emersonian job on Michaelangelo, such generosity and grace and good will put to making him into a delightful character rather than a paradoxical human being. But you can feel the force of Emerson’s good intentions. Is it just me or is it funny that he splits his name that way? Rather like the old story about the man who though the Lord’s prayer ran: Our Father, who Art in Heaven, Harold be thy name….
Amateur Reader, I suspected Emerson was being very selective in his biographical highlights. I did not know he translated some of Michelangelo’s poems. Thanks for the tip! I will definitely check out the Library of America volume!
Litlove, yes, you’ve got that right! If only I could revive Emerson so he could write my biography. I thought it odd how he separated Michelangelo’s name too. And he frequently refers to him as Michael. Perhaps that was not an uncommon thing to do in Emerson’s time, but it was odd to read.
Pingback: Saturday’s Me and You: The week in review 8/23/08 « An unfinished person (in this unfinished universe)