The 
Italian 
Renaissance 
was the birth of Western art 
as it is known today. When 
asked 
to 
think 
of 
“great” 
paintings, minds often conjure 
Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona 
Lisa,” Michelangelo’s program 
on the ceiling of the Sistine 
Chapel or Sandro Botticelli’s 
“The Birth of Venus.” These 
works 
were 
revolutionary, 
especially compared to the 
Byzantine iconography which 
they succeeded. It brought a 
new emphasis on naturalism 
and 
modeling, 
an 
attempt 
to show nature as it is (or, 
perhaps, as better than it is). 
The Renaissance also saw the 
invention of the one-point — 
or linear — perspective, one of 
the many techniques that made 
their mark on art history. The 
era saw a momentary return 
to the artistic origins of the 
ancients, a re-birth of the 
aptitude for creation found in 
antiquity. 
But 
the 
“Mona 
Lisa” 
is 
more than a pretty picture 
— 
Renaissance 
works 
are 
important to art and society 
today. Art has implications 
and it can be a tool to help 
individuals interface with the 
world.
“The thing about art is that 
it can give us opportunities 
and incentives to look at things 
differently,” History of Art 
Professor 
Thomas 
Willette 
wrote in an email interview 

with The Daily. 
In the Renaissance, art was 
often sacred: as a devotional 
object to aid worship, but more 
importantly as a guidebook. Art 
was a visual depiction of how 
to be a good Catholic; most, if 
not all, art coming from the 
Italian Renaissance was by and 
for Catholics. Art was deeply 
intertwined with religion, and 
thus secular themes in art were 
not well received. Nudity in the 
Sistine Chapel, for instance, 
was seen as so distasteful 
that the church had some of 

Michelangelo’s 
fresco 
work 
painted over after his death. 
The Italian aristocracy was 
dependent on and often a part of 
the church. Even independent 
patronage was often done by 
members of the clergy. 
Recent history has shown 
that religion remains a powerful 
cultural force, guiding politics 

and 
international 
relations. 
Tensions 
in 
Israel 
and 
Palestine, as well as in the Gulf 
and on the Arabian Peninsula 
can all be attributed in part to 
religion. Contemporary art may 
be able to play a mediating role, 
or art historians may look back 
upon today and see religious/
sectarian loyalty in the art of 
our time. “Contemporary art 
is capable of mitigating the 
kinds of political and cultural 
tensions that are, rightly or 
wrongly, justified by claims 
about religious tradition and 

identity. It can do so by showing 
us 
thought 
experiments 
in 
which the spiritual side of 
religion is pried loose from 
the political and cultural hot-
button issues that have become 
opportunistically attached to 
religion,” Willette wrote.
The Renaissance also saw a 
new importance placed on the 

artist. Today, the person behind 
the art matters a great deal. 
Artists like Damien Hirst and 
Jeff Koons are currently active 
and worth fortunes on their 
names alone. Artists as celebrity 
figures are evident in the recent 
past (Warhol, for example), but 
present-day 
artist-celebrities 
are few and far between. The 
large personalities who take a 
business-like approach to art 
(Koons worked on Wall Street 
for a time) crowd the scene and 
may doom the less networking-
savvy artists to the shadows. 
The Italian Renaissance saw an 
increased emphasis on the artist 
themself. In some cases, the 
artist was able to rise through 
social ranks and interact with 
the aristocracy. Jeff Koons may 
be a particularly worthwhile 
case to examine. “Artists in the 
early modern period … earned 
their livings either as clients of 
wealthy patrons or through the 
market,” Willette wrote. “Very 
few rose to the kind of social 
status enjoyed by a Raphael or 
a Michelangelo, who were able 
to work almost like modern-
day contractors. That kind of 
independence requires a lot of 
fame and a lot of connections in 
high places. The vast majority 
of artists were members of 
trade guilds and took orders 
for bespoken work, often never 
meeting the people who paid 
them. The idea that artists were 
highly respected during the 
Renaissance is mostly a myth 
created 
by 
wishful-thinking 
artists and art-lovers in the 19th 
century, 
particularly 
during 
what we call the Romantic 
period. The mass-celebrity and 
wealth that big-name artists 
can command now did not 
exist before the international 
art 
market 
became 
highly 
developed, so that is largely a 
phenomenon of the 19th and 
especially the 20th century.”
One 
key 
Enlightenment 
thinker was Johann Joachim 
Winckelmann. He looked to 
the Greeks as creating art of 
“noble simplicity and quiet 
grandeur.” His focus was on 
art that improved upon nature, 
rather than merely copying it. 
Naturalism was not his ideal, 
but rather idealization of the 
natural forms. This interest in 
the superstructural beauty of 
nature, composed of the ideal 
parts of other forms, calls 
to mind the story of Zeuxis, 
painting Helen of Troy via 
the 
fragmented 
images 
of 
several different models. This 
idealization 
certainly 
has 
implications in terms of self-
image, and these implications 
should not be ignored. The 
other question, however, is in 
this constant self-referentiality. 
Winckelmann looked to the 
Greeks, and myths like the one 

mentioned above. In the same 
manner, 
Bronzino 
referred 
to the Belvedere Torso when 
painting “Portrait of Cosimo I 
de’ Medici as Orpheus” from 
1537 to 1539. Marcel Duchamp 
took an actual print of the 
Mona Lisa and edited it for 

his “L.H.O.O.Q.” in 1919. This 
inspiration from the past is 
common and noteworthy.
Winckelmann looked to the 
Greeks for artistic perfection 
in the same way artists during 
the Italian Renaissance looked 
to antiquity for inspiration 
and subject matter. Today’s 
art refers to antiquity in many 
ways; new revelations about 
once-painted 
marble 
statues 
may change the significance 
of 
antiquities 
themselves. 
“What we are learning about 
the original coloring of ancient 
Greek and Roman statues is 
not entirely new, but various 
technical 
refinements, 
now 
assisted by digital media, have 
made it possible to create 
and 
disseminate 
striking 
hypothetical reconstructions of 
the appearances of such works, 
(I stress hypothetical), and 
many people today seem to like 
the idea. Remember a few years 
back when it became fashionable 
to think that dinosaurs were 
probably brightly colored, like 
today’s birds, and not all dusky 
dark green and brown?” Willete 
wrote. “Fortunately, we have 
a bit more evidence where the 
coloring 
of 
ancient 
marble 
statues 
is 
concerned. 
The 
popular 
traveling 
exhibition 
“Gods in Color: Polychromy 
in 
the 
Ancient 
World” 
is 
probably 
an 
annoyance 
to 
white supremacist groups like 
Identity Evropa, who have been 
recruiting a lot of statuary to 
their cause in recent years, 
but I can’t agree with those 
who think that taking the 
white stone men away from 
white supremacists is the main 
reason to get excited about the 
investigation of polychromy in 
antiquity. Besides, no amount 
of color and vivid patterning 
can change the fact that most 

people living in ancient Greece 
or ancient Rome were slaves.”
The proliferation of art in 
the Renaissance would not have 
occurred without institutional 
and individual patronage. The 
Catholic 
church, 
clergymen 
and wealthy families like the 
Medici clan spent immense 
amounts of money on art, 
sculpture 
and 
architecture. 
Art was a status symbol, as it 
remains in some regard today. 
The work of artists who have 
been inducted to the canon of 
Western art is worth millions. 
Supporting 
artists 
— 
in 
contemporary times and in the 
recent — is a difficult task. The 
starving artist trope is not a lie. 
In Enlightenment-era France, 
as well as in Renaissance Italy, 
the state was a huge provider 
of arts patronage. While the 
United States has the National 
Endowment 
for 
the 
Arts, 
patronage is not given the same 
importance. This has its pros 
and cons. While the state has 
no say in what contemporary 
art is, it does leave important 
projects 
with 
cultural 
and 
societal significance unfunded. 
“The 
U.S. 
government 
can 
become a significant patron 
of art, perhaps even on a par 
with the court of Louis XIV, 
but many changes in our ruling 
culture and institutions will 
have to start coming about, 
and I don’t see any evidence of 
that at the moment. The Works 
Progress Administration was 
a highly successful New Deal 
agency, and it did a lot of good 
without any help from the art 
market, but that was the 1930s 
and early ’40s, when many 
people evidently believed that 
1) the imaginative experience 
of art can help to make one a 
better person, and 2) the state is 
capable of assisting our better 
angels. Neither of these ideas 
seems to have much credibility 
today,” Willette wrote on the 
issue. 
The 
Italian 
Renaissance 
continues 
to 
offer 
valuable 
lessons 
to 
this 
day. 
The 
revolutionary nature of art is 
not constant, and the evolution 
of contemporary art is fluid 
and enigmatic. To gain better 
insight into contemporary art, 
and the interaction of art with 
society today, it is beneficial to 
understand the roots of Western 
art and note the differences 
between 15th century Italy, 
18th century France and 21st 
century America. Art is always 
in a renaissance. Stagnancy 
recoils at the sight of the artist. 
There will always be something 
new in art, and it is worthwhile 
to understand the past to better 
understand self-referentiality, 
new impacts of old themes 
and the role of the artist in 
contemporary society. 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
b-side
Thursday, March 14, 2019 — 5B

Contemporary visual art 
and the Italian Renaissance

ROSS ORGIEFSKY
Daily Arts Writer

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

B-SIDE SECONDARY

When 
fashion 
designer 
Gianni Versace was murdered 
outside 
of 
his 
luxurious 
mansion 
in 
Miami 
Beach, 
Florida, the devastated fashion 
world 
assumed 
the 
iconic 
brand was dead. With the 
house’s fearless leader gone at 
a mere 50 years, designers and 
style connoisseurs alike were 

prepared to leave his brand in 
the dust. After all, in fashion, 
one day you’re in, as for the 
next day … well you know the 
rest.
The atelier was in shock. 
His death came before the 
knockout that was the Versace 
Ready-to-Wear 
collection 
at Milan Fashion Week in 
1991, where model icons like 
Naomi Campbell and Cindy 
Crawford 
walked 
down 
the runway as a force to be 
reckoned with, singing along 

to George Michael’s ‘Freedom’, 
all sporting bold colors and 
silhouettes: a style that can 
only be associated with the 
work of Gianni Versace.
It seemed artistic moments 
like 
this 
were 
no 
longer 
going to be a product of the 
renowned brand. Yet, how is 
it that today, in 2019, Versace 
is just as integral as it was 
in 
the 
’90s? 
The 
answer: 
Versace never really died. The 
iconic namesake was never 
tarnished, in fact the entire 

house completely embodies the 
renaissance: In every corner of 
the Versace legacy from the 
evolution of Donatella Versace 
to the overall aesthetic of the 
brand’s recognizable pattern, 
color and silhouettes, Versace 
essentially started the trend of 
rebirth.
Model 
powerhouses 
like 
Gigi 
Hadid 
and 
Shalom 
Harlow regularly walk the 
Versace runway, and they do so 
proudly. Although the loss of 
fashion genius Gianni Versace 
was a setback, instead of 
giving up and abandoning what 
remained of Versace’s legacy, 
the entire atelier used this 
loss and change to completely 
revolutionize the brand, the 
center of this revolution being 
Donatella Versace.
Initially the muse for the 
company, Donatella Versace 
was her brother’s main source 
of inspiration. At the time of 
her brother’s death she was not 
completely involved with the 
designing of the luxury items, 
but rather the Versace poster 
child. But it is her shift in roles 
that completely defines Versace 
as the renaissance. Donatella 
Versace took what she knew 
about the company’s tradition 
and maintained it, embracing 
the changes and rebirth that 
came with her face as the new 
brand of the company. Ads for 
the company’s 2019 collections 
embrace the concept of change 
and breaking from tradition.
In an interview with The 
New 
York 
Times, 
Versace 
explains the pressure she felt 
to keep Versace relevant after 
her brothers passing and how 
to ensure their customers the 

brand would survive. In reality, 
instead of hiding behind the 
death of her brother, Versace 
pushed the brand further. “I 
like branding, all the time. 
It’s what I do,” said Versace. 
Where she could have stepped 
down, Donatella Versace gave 
customers and designers no 
excuses 
not 
to 
remember 
the 
Versace 
name, 
playing 
with 
patterns 
and 
layers 
so bold, one has no choice 
not to stop and remember a 
Versace design or textile. To 
this day, Donatella Versace 
is revamping what her late 
brother created, redesigning 
the iconic leather strap for 
the dress she wore in 1994 — 
undoubtedly remembered as 
one of the most iconic pieces 
of its time — for the 2019 
Fall/Winter 
collection. 
In 
2017, she even nodded to the 
aforementioned 
1991 
Milan 
show, paying tribute to iconic 
Gianni Versace by inviting 
models from the 1991 show 
to walk the runway in classic 
Versace 
prints, 
including 
butterflies and Vogue covers.
So, while Gianni’s Versace 
textiles have always visually 
and aesthetically embodied the 
renaissance — never straying 
from the boldest of patterns 
or layering — making even 
those most unfamiliar with 
fashion recognize a Versace 
print or silhouette, the true 
embodiment of the renaissance 
lies in the strategy of branding 
that Donatella Versace has 
focused in on so clearly that, 22 
years later, the Versace atelier 
is still the key to luxury and 
extravagance in fashion and 
style. In today’s fashion world, 

consumers and designers are 
constantly encouraged to purge 
their fashion palettes, clearing 
room in closets and on sewing 
tables for new pieces and 
collections. Versace could have 
easily taken the traditional 
route, dividing the work of her 
brother Gianni from what she 
would create after his death. 
She could have completely 
rebranded the Versace atelier, 
but she chose to make her 
company even more bold and 
unforgettable, a strategy that 
has in turn branded Versace as 
one of the most consistent and 
powerful fashion houses in the 
industry.
When the phrase renaissance 
in fashion comes to mind, I 
would argue Versace’s oriental 
prints are the exact visual 
depiction of this era, the word 
change a close second thought. 
Yet Donatella Versace’s own 
renaissance 
involved 
little 
change, rather a focus on 
the existing, a choice that 
completely 
revolutionized 
fashion, a world where we are 
constantly ready to consume 
something new in order to 
abandon the old. The rebirth 
of Versace under Donatella’s 
name 
did 
not 
require 
completely going back to the 
drawing board for an entirely 
new 
aesthetic, 
and, 
lucky 
for the fashion world, a new 
wave of Versace was never 
born. There were just constant 
reminders of the Versace name 
and focus on expanding the 
existing, pushing for something 
even bolder. A telltale that 
consistency can, against all 
odds, activate change: A true, 
modern renaissance. 

GETTY IMAGES
From tragedy to triumph, 
or the evolution of Versace

MARGARET SHERIDAN
Daily Style Editor

B-SIDE: STYLE

The era saw a momentary return to the 
artistic origins of the ancients, a rebirth 
of the aptitude of creation found in 
antiquity.

The Italian 
Renaissance saw 
an increased 
emphasis on the 
artist themself.

