All language subtitles for [English] S01_E02 - The Renaissance [DownSub.com]

(upbeat music)

- The nude is the most
enduring subject in art.

For more than 20,000 years,

images of the naked human body
have been at the very center

of a long and complex saga.

It's hard to understand any of
the major developments in art

without an understanding
of the key role played

by changing depictions
of naked men and women.

In this series,

I'm going to explore the ongoing
significance of the nude,

what it tells us about
various civilizations

and what it tells us about ourselves

and the world in which we live

In the ancient civilizations
of the Greeks and the Romans,

the nude was used in abundance

to glorify an idealized
male physical strength,

because they were militaristic societies,

but everything changes after
the collapse of these empires

and the rise of a new Christian one.

(mysterious music)

(birds cawing)

I'm standing in a church in West Sussex,

the Church of St Botolph's in Hardham

and on the walls are some

of the earliest medieval wall paintings

that exist anywhere in Britain.

These images were painted
sometime just after 1100

by a group of artists
called the Lewis group

who traveled around
this part of West Sussex

and who fused the Anglo-Saxon style

with something of the Norman style

that we might see in the Bayeux Tapestry.

The image that I'm looking at puts

the nude fundamentally center stage,

but with a very strong
Christian moral purpose.

We see Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

They're very simplistically drawn

although there's something
wonderfully visceral

and almost intestine-like

about the external view of their bodies.

Adam is pointing and Eve is reaching over

and taking the Apple
from the winged serpent,

wrapped round the tree
that we can see there.

And on the other panel on the
other side of the chancery,

we see them hiding their nakedness

and suddenly nudity is
no longer an expression

of human ideals and beauty and perfection,

but it's an expression of sin.

Why?

Well, the Bible makes itself quite clear.

Once the apple had been eaten,

then the eyes of both of
them were opened, it says,

and they discovered that they were naked.

So they stitched fig leaves together

and made themselves loincloths.

And then Adam says to God,

I was afraid because I was
naked and I hid myself.

Why Judaism and subsequently
Christianity took this view

is puzzling, but the nude so
greatly celebrated and admired

in the art of Greece
and Rome was now cloaked

in a cloud of shame that
we've never really shaken off.

- I think the Christian religion
has a lot to answer for,

quite frankly, in terms
of the way we view art,

because the church had very,
very strong desires to censor.

And the church did so.

The church destroyed images,

the church insisted on removing images

from public view because it was considered

that in the Christian
Church, nudity was evil.

Nudity was the work of the devil.

- This series is focusing
largely on Western art,

but it'd be wrong of me completely

to ignore the other parts of the world

and how they were portraying the nude

at exactly the same time.

If one looks at India, for example,

what's apparent is an openness,

in sharp contrast, to the
inherent European prudishness

of the Middle Ages.

These Hindu temples contain
images that we still can't show.

And indeed the British
imperialists two centuries ago,

tried to cover them up, even
destroy them in some cases,

but in Hindu beliefs,

the act of sexual union is akin

to understanding the universe.

The pleasure of love making is seen

as the doorway to spiritual balance

and the embrace of man and woman signifies

the ultimate union of
the soul and the divine.

In the 14th century, Western
art underwent a revolution

and the great revolutionary artist

was a man called Giotto di Bondone.

A man who was born near
Florence around 1267

and his early life, according

to the great Florentine art
historian, Giorgio Vasari,

was as that of a shepherd boy,

who was discovered by Cimabue
painting animals on a rock.

Cimabue was the greatest
Florentine painter of his day,

and took Giotto on as a pupil

and they worked together on
the great murals at Assisi,

depicting the life of Saint Francis,

a lot of which has
subsequently been destroyed

by an earthquake,

but this I think is Giotto's
crowning achievement.

It's in the Scrovegni
Chapel here in Padua,

and it depicts the lives of the saints,

the life of the Virgin Mary,
and, most dramatically,

the life of Christ in 38
panels rendered directly

on the wall and showing a real drama

that's never been in Western
art until this point.

Now, Giotto works rather than
the manner of an architect.

What I mean by that is that Giotto

would have to do sketches
and drawings on parchment.

He would then pinprick holes

to outline the various figures and forms

and then the parchments
will be put on the walls,

charcoal will be blown through

and so the outline will be there visible.

Then of course, he's got to
work directly onto wet plaster

in a process that is risky
and has gotta be done quickly.

And this is the result.

Giotto's representation of
nudity largely continues

the Christian tradition of using the nude

as a portrayal of sin.

This is Giotto's Last
Judgment, in my opinion,

the best Last Judgment ever painted,

apart from Michelangelo's 200 years later

in the Sistine Chapel.

At the center is Christ,

throned in splendor, passing judgment,

but the most dramatic,
traumatic and disturbing part

of the whole picture is here on the right

where four tongues of
flames suck nude figures

down into hell.

This is the descendant of depravity

where figures are pulled apart.

They're falling, they're being raped.

They're being violated by demons

and here with this massive image of Satan,

they're being devoured and
excreted in a vicious cycle.

(dramatic music)

But what Giotto did that was revolutionary

was to begin imbuing human figures

with emotion and a
sense of powerful drama.

There's a panel just to the
right of the crucifixion

where Christ lies in
the arms of his mother.

He's dead.

His mother has a sense
of real loss on her face.

Likewise, the figures
that surround it convey

a real sense of drama

and suddenly it becomes
clear that raw emotion

and the real essence
of a story in the Bible

can be brought to life through painting.

And that's what Giotto does.

(upbeat music)

Giotto's fame as an
artist spread dramatically

during his lifetime and in 1334,

he was invited here to
the city of Florence,

where he was given the
title of Grandmaster

and also appointed as architect

of the campanile or tower
next to Florence cathedral.

At this time, Italy was
a mass of city states,

each vying with the other

for military and political
and economic supremacy.

Florence's economic supremacy centered

on the wool trade and banking.

And of course the best way

of affirming how successful you were,

was to commission the best
artists and architects

to build public monuments.

And it was this combination

of the economic and the aesthetic

the led, over the next 60 years,

to the foundations of the most influential

and important art movement
of the last 2000 years,

the Renaissance.

At the core at the beginning
of the 15th century

were three great figures,

one an architect, Brunelleschi,

who built the dome of Florence cathedral,

mirrored on the classical dome
from the Pantheon in Rome.

And then a sculptor, Donatello,

and a painter called Masaccio

who reinvented the classical nude.

(bright music)

Masaccio looked back to
Giotto for inspiration,

but set his characters in three,
rather than two dimensions,

based on the new science of perspective,

creating an illusion of solid figures

in space with light coming
from a precise direction

and with the subsequent shadows,

giving both a sense of depth

and physical intensity to the work.

This is the rebirth of
Classical ideal nudes,

based on Greek and Roman models,

as opposed to the Christian
iconography we've just seen,

though like St. Botolph's,

the nudes here are Adam and Eve

being expelled from the Garden of Eden.

Their nudity, once again, a
symbol of their sinfulness,

but with a subtle but crucial
shift in attitude evident.

For Masaccio doesn't paint them

as totally fallen human beings.

Their dignity is still intact

and their bodies are a
blend of Christian guilt

and the beautiful Classical nude

which celebrated naturalness.

This was the beginning of a major struggle

in which artists were going to try

and win back guiltlessness, nakedness,

and a sense of beauty.

(upbeat music)

The new approach to painting in general

and the nude in particular

towards the end of the 15th century

is most clearly demonstrated
by Sandro Botticelli

and this painting, above
all, "The Birth of Venus".

The rebirth of Classicism,

of the values of the Classical world

of Ancient Greece and Rome which
underpinned the Renaissance

was made widely popular at this time

by the excavation of ancient statues.

Artists were greatly
impressed and influenced

by these statues and
Botticelli was no exception.

What we see is an image
of the goddess, Venus,

emerging from the sea.

She's on a shell.

She's being blown gently
to shore by two wind gods

who scatter petals or roses around her

and she's just about to be greeted

by another figure on the
shore, well, she's a nymph,

but some people have said,

she's a goddess too, the
goddess of spring, Primavera,

who holds a cloak for her.

The painting is charged with ambiguities.

We can read superficially what it's about,

but I think ultimately it's this image

of a wonderful, dramatic frozen moment

in which her nudity is central,

because it's just about to
be covered up by the cloak.

And yet we see her
revealing as much of herself

as is possible in the conventions

of 15th century Florentine art

and Christian morality in general.

Some people have also seen in this image,

a wonderful fusion of different
ideas of the Christian

and the Classical,

that in her facial expressions
and in her gestures,

she's very much like some images
of the blessed Virgin Mary.

At the same time, people
have looked at this

and said, Plato, the
great Greek philosopher,

his ideas were very strong in
Florence in the 15th century.

And his idea about ideal and
perfection and perfect forms,

fuses with the Christian idea

about the divine being the
source of all perfection

and that this is an
image of perfect beauty.

Botticelli himself had severe
reservations about this work,

which stemmed from the fact

that a vehement Christian
preacher called Savonarola

was spreading a message
in Florence in the 1480s

about the association of nudity

with sinfulness and depravity,

and consequently Botticelli
destroys a number of nude images

that he's produced,

but this painting survives,

in many ways as a manifesto
to the shifting status

of the nude in Western art.

In this image, the idea that
the nude is sinful and depraved

is moved firmly to one
side and suddenly we see,

in all its glory, the idea of the nude

as something to be celebrated,

something beautiful, something natural.

(bright music)

If Botticelli's "Birth
of Venus" is very much

a painted symbol of the desire
to make the nude beautiful,

that this is the sculptural one.

Michelangelo's monumental vision of David,

produced in 1501 when he
was only 26 years old.

Michelangelo was trained as a painter

under a man called Ghirlandaio

and he's also immediately
taken up by the patrons

who are the banking firm and family

who effectively rule the city of Florence

in the latter half of the 15th century,

the Medici family, but they're
overthrown in the 1490s

and a republic is implemented in Florence

and Michelangelo has to flee to Rome.

But he's invited back
by the Republic in 1500

and in 1501, commissioned
to make this work.

Now, it's hewn from Carrara marble

and Michelangelo gets a piece of stone

that's already been
worked on by a sculptor

and discarded and produces
this image of David,

which is a biblical character,

but fused with Classical values.

He's proportionate, he's
harmonious, he's beautiful.

There's a calm, but there's
also an inner strength

and the crucial thing about
this work is where it's sited.

The original was taken away at
the beginning of the century

and put in the Academia Museum.

And this is a replica
made on the original site

where David was located.

He stands outside the Palazzo Vecchio.

This was the seat of Florentine government

and he's there as a
symbol of the city itself.

He looks south to Rome,

which is the city that
offers the greatest threat

to the Florentine Republic.

And on the platform that
you see David emerging from

was where public proclamations
were made by government

and the population would gather around

to make or vote on those decisions

just as the population or the
tourists gather around now

to pay homage to David himself.

He's become a symbol of many things.

Ultimately, I think, of
Michelangelo's prowess,

but also of male beauty.

- We might think of David
as a Classical sculpture

because it's proportions
are, in many ways, Classical,

reminiscent of the great
Classical sculptures

of Greek antiquity.

But in many ways,

it's a startlingly modern
Renaissance sculpture.

Many Classical sculptures
have a slightly sullen aspect,

an introversion.

They look in at themselves.

They don't directly challenge the viewer.

David looks straight out at the viewer.

David is a statue which is
almost belligerently proud

of its nakedness.

It challenges the viewer, both,
I think, with sheer bravado,

but also deliberately erotically.

- Man was now seen as
the most beautiful thing

in the universe and nowhere is the merging

of the Classical and the Christian ideals

more visible than in
Michelangelo's greatest work,

the Sistine Chapel.

At the turn of the 16th century,

Pope Julius the Second had decided

to have the chapel in
the Vatican decorated.

The initial plan was
for 12 enormous figures

of the Apostles,

but Michelangelo rejected this as unworthy

and instead painted episodes
from Genesis and the creation.

It took four years of intense labor,

a saga told by art
historians in Hollywood,

of hundreds of hours of lying on his back,

eyes inflamed from paints and so on.

But finally, the work was unveiled

and the nude loomed large.

Michelangelo's homosexuality
seems to have infused his work.

Young, naked, and often
eroticized men are everywhere,

surrounding the very
moment of creation itself.

Some members of the church preach

that characters in biblical scenes

should always have loincloths

and others even insisted
that the baby Christ

should always be decently draped.

In fact, a year after his death in 1565,

the Vatican repainted some scenes

it thought too risque.

In particular, his Last
Judgment was declared obscene

and 41 nudes painted over.

One cleric declared that
such works were more suited

to a bath house than to a church.

Michelangelo did, however, set a trend

in which artists, keen
to show off their skills,

chose Christian subjects in
which they could show nudity

without fear of retribution

and indeed even celebrate
sexuality and flesh effectively

for the first time since antiquity.

The erotic charge that
Michelangelo gave to the male nude

was echoed in the paintings
of the female nude

by Tiziano Vecellio,

known as Titian in English speaking world.

And in this work in particular

his celebrated "Venus of
Urbino", painted in 1538.

Titian is born in Venice
and he's a Venetian artist

throughout his life who
in some ways symbolizes

a major shift in power
in the Italian art scene,

a shift from Florence to Venice,

a city where light often informs the art

of the 16th century.

And Titian becomes a celebrated star,

if you like, of the Italian
art world by the time he's 50.

And in the 1530s,

he's courted by, among others,
the emperor Charles the Fifth

who makes him court painter,

but by numerous aristocrats

who want him to paint their portraits

and in particular one
Guidobaldo della Rovere

who later becomes the Duke of Urbino

who commissions this work from Titian.

Now, what we see is a
woman lying out on a bed,

Venus, given a Classical veneer,

but she's also recognizably
a more modern woman.

Her eyes look at us in a way

that is both elusive, but knowing.

Her hands cover her genitals,

but equally there's a sense

that she knows exactly what she's doing.

The bed on which she
lies has ruffled sheets

as if something has just taken place.

But also there's a kind of
invitation in her open pose

for something to take place subsequently.

It's almost inviting us to join her.

At least that's the way a
lot of male commentators

have seen this piece.

She holds a bunch of
flowers, a symbol of love,

but with one of the flowers having fallen,

precarious, I suppose,

or an image of love being something

that can be precarious or transient.

We know that Guidobaldo
had recently married

a very young wife and
wanted a visual manual

to show his wife how to behave.

Firstly, as a sexual being

who could seduce or entice her husband.

Secondly, as a loyal wife,

and thirdly, as a domestic
wife who can run a household,

but also if we look at the
way that Titian applies paint,

he sensually applies,
brush strokes open up.

And the idea that paint and flesh

are closely bound together,

I think it's very strong and it's that,

that makes this work so
influential for subsequent artists

like Rubens or Velasquez or,
perhaps above all, Manet,

who take this iconic
image and use it as a way

of exploring the idea of woman as goddess

and as sexual being.

The most radical developments
in the depiction of the nude

stem from the work

of the great Renaissance man
himself, Leonardo da Vinci,

whose studious analytical
approach to the portrayal of man

was so advanced that
it took over a century

before it began to dominate the way art

was taught and produced.

The two centuries of the
Renaissance were about two things.

First, that to be human
was not necessarily sinful.

And secondly, as part of this,

man, not God had moved
to the center of art.

Leonardo watched and took
part in the dissection

of the human body,

which enabled him, literally
as well as metaphorically,

to get under the skin of the nude

and allowed him to understand the workings

of muscles and veins and, more broadly,

how the body actually
functioned from the inside out.

Consequently, he was
able to render the nude

ever more accurately.

Order stands at the very center
of the Italian Renaissance.

The human figure is a
microcosm of the universe.

A figure whose extensions are encompassed

by the perfect, almost divine shapes,

of the circle and the square.

Man at the center.

The measure of all things, naked.

The Renaissance, here in Florence,

described as the cradle of civilization

did so much more than simply give rebirth

to Classical learning.

In many ways,

it reinvigorated Western
art for the next 500 years

and it still does and the
nude was its central emblem.

And the nudes produced by
artists like Botticelli

and Michelangelo, but above all Leonardo,

heralded a shift in the way
that humanity saw itself

and represented itself.

And in particular, Leonardo's
"Vitruvian Man" hinted

at what was to happen over
the next 300 years in the West

when man, stripped down
in his most natural state,

increasingly moved center stage.

(upbeat music)