WEBVTT
00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:05.930
Art...
00:00:05.930 --> 00:00:07.900
ArtSleuth
00:00:10.660 --> 00:00:13.400
A shower of roses
00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:17.000
A modestly concealing gesture
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:19.860
A pensive face
00:00:19.860 --> 00:00:23.060
A picture by Sandro Botticelli.
00:00:23.060 --> 00:00:27.000
One of those mythical nudes which recur throughout the history of painting?
00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:29.000
Not just that:
00:00:29.660 --> 00:00:33.130
a nude of a kind not seen for a millennium:
00:00:33.130 --> 00:00:37.730
life-size, graceful, full-frontal and totally present.
00:00:37.730 --> 00:00:39.850
For centuries, nudity has spelt humiliation,
00:00:39.850 --> 00:00:41.850
… or vice
00:00:41.850 --> 00:00:43.850
and beauty has been suspect,
00:00:45.100 --> 00:00:49.600
and now both are revealed and idolised in this picture of Venus, Godess of Love…
00:00:50.600 --> 00:00:53.300
With this celebration of woman’s body and grace,
00:00:53.300 --> 00:00:57.900
humanist man of the Renaissance enters the modern age.
00:00:57.900 --> 00:00:59.350
Icon?
00:00:59.350 --> 00:01:01.350
… or cliché?
00:01:02.450 --> 00:01:06.100
Countless reproductions have made this scene so sickeningly familiar,
00:01:06.100 --> 00:01:08.500
that we almost hope to see it take a Monty Python turn,
00:01:10.900 --> 00:01:13.250
and forget to look at it properly!
00:01:13.250 --> 00:01:16.600
If we did, and looked beyond its apparent serenity and gentleness,
00:01:16.600 --> 00:01:18.600
this uneasy balancing act,
00:01:20.850 --> 00:01:24.250
this frenetic movement,
00:01:24.250 --> 00:01:26.250
this firm, unwavering line…
00:01:29.250 --> 00:01:31.500
… we would see that this slender, elongated figure,
00:01:31.500 --> 00:01:33.500
with its abundant hair
00:01:33.500 --> 00:01:35.900
is light years away from the massive solidity of classical statuary…
00:01:35.900 --> 00:01:38.900
and that this abstracted, melancholy face,
00:01:38.900 --> 00:01:42.850
is closer to today’s deadpan super-models
00:01:42.850 --> 00:01:44.850
than the frankly carnal images of Venus which followed it.
00:01:46.200 --> 00:01:51.400
So: Renaissance goddess or medieval madonna?
00:01:51.400 --> 00:01:56.650
Symbol of emancipation or stock masculine ideal?
00:01:56.650 --> 00:01:58.650
Who exactly is this woman?
00:01:58.650 --> 00:02:00.650
BOTTICELLI - *The Birth of Venus*
00:02:00.650 --> 00:02:02.650
*That Obscure Object of Desire*
00:02:04.550 --> 00:02:06.550
Part 1 : Weight of the word, shock of the image
00:02:07.400 --> 00:02:09.000
The answer seems obvious:
00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:11.900
she is Venus, at the very moment of her birth!
00:02:11.900 --> 00:02:13.000
beautiful …
00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:15.000
… awkwardly shielding her nakedness
00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:17.000
… surrounded by her attributes:
00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:19.400
the conch-shell, on which she was born amid the waves,
00:02:19.400 --> 00:02:21.050
and the roses
00:02:26.500 --> 00:02:29.450
On her left, Zephyr, god of the west wind,
00:02:29.450 --> 00:02:31.500
cheeks swelling as he blows,
00:02:31.500 --> 00:02:34.650
and his companion, Aura, the spring wind.
00:02:34.650 --> 00:02:37.750
They are wafting the shell towards the shore …
00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:42.050
… where a woman is waiting to fold Venus in a scarlet cloak,
00:02:42.050 --> 00:02:44.050
patterned with violets.
00:02:44.700 --> 00:02:46.250
She is one of the Horae,
00:02:46.250 --> 00:02:49.100
goddesses of the seasons - presumably Spring.
00:02:49.850 --> 00:02:54.600
But Botticelli’s Venus comes straight from classical antiquity:
00:02:54.600 --> 00:02:59.400
True, he has faithfully followed the description of her birth given by Politian,
00:02:59.400 --> 00:03:01.700
his contemporary.
00:03:01.700 --> 00:03:04.750
But that text is itself based
on Pliny the Elder’s account of
00:03:04.750 --> 00:03:08.400
a legendary fresco of Venus, painted by Apelles,
00:03:08.400 --> 00:03:10.900
ancient Greece’s most celebrated painter,
00:03:12.250 --> 00:03:13.800
for Alexander the Great!
00:03:15.750 --> 00:03:20.050
Impossible to find a more illustrious forebear for the artist,
00:03:20.050 --> 00:03:23.150
or his patrons, the Medici.
00:03:23.150 --> 00:03:27.250
And the Medici themselves provide his second great source of classical inspiration -
00:03:27.250 --> 00:03:30.150
their Roman copy of the Venus of Praxiteles,
00:03:30.150 --> 00:03:34.650
a nude statue whose fabled beauty so fired one young man with passion
00:03:34.650 --> 00:03:37.150
that he attempted to make love to it!
00:03:38.900 --> 00:03:43.500
The Birth of Venus thus seems to embody the true Renaissance spirit:
00:03:43.500 --> 00:03:46.600
rejection of medieval obscurantism
00:03:46.600 --> 00:03:48.600
thanks to rediscovery of the Greek and Roman legacy.
00:03:50.350 --> 00:03:56.650
And yet, comparison of Botticelli’s picture with other contemporary masterworks
00:03:56.650 --> 00:03:58.650
reveals some striking differences:
00:03:59.550 --> 00:04:02.950
His fellow painters are enthralled by perspective,
00:04:02.950 --> 00:04:04.950
but his use of it here is perfunctory:
00:04:06.850 --> 00:04:11.150
no progressive fading-out of contrasts to convey increasing distance
00:04:11.150 --> 00:04:15.700
and his figures look like cut-outs pasted on a background.
00:04:17.050 --> 00:04:20.950
Again, while his contemporaries seek to make figures life-like
00:04:20.950 --> 00:04:22.950
by softening their contours,
00:04:22.950 --> 00:04:25.750
Botticelli gives those contours a chiselled clarity.
00:04:28.250 --> 00:04:31.050
Finally, Venus differs from her model:
00:04:31.050 --> 00:04:33.900
her neck and face are longer
00:04:33.900 --> 00:04:35.350
her shoulders less broad
00:04:35.350 --> 00:04:37.350
her stomach rounder…
00:04:38.450 --> 00:04:42.900
and she violates the sacrosanct principles of classical proportion…
00:04:42.900 --> 00:04:47.900
In theory, the proportions of the whole are determined by the distance between the breasts,
00:04:47.900 --> 00:04:49.900
but here the rule is loosely applied and the proportional distances are variable.
00:04:52.250 --> 00:04:54.500
Classical stability has gone too:
00:04:54.500 --> 00:04:57.600
instead, we get an improbable disequilibrium.
00:04:58.350 --> 00:05:01.700
Is Venus concealing her real origins?
00:05:05.830 --> 00:05:07.500
Part 2. *The art of living in the present*
00:05:08.550 --> 00:05:12.150
With the scanty classical material at his disposal,
00:05:12.150 --> 00:05:15.400
Botticelli cannot hope to convey the goddess’s full beauty to his contemporaries.
00:05:16.400 --> 00:05:22.100
So he falls back on earlier styles still popular in late fifteenth-century Florence.
00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:26.600
He turns, for example, to the medieval tapestries of northern Europe, which are highly prized by the Medici.
00:05:26.600 --> 00:05:29.350
Typically, their figures stand out like arabesques,
00:05:29.350 --> 00:05:33.000
and his flattened perspective in The Birth of Venus echoes this medium,
00:05:33.000 --> 00:05:37.850
whose physical nature makes it hard to render depth.
00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:42.200
He also turns to goldsmithing, a typically medieval art,
00:05:42.200 --> 00:05:44.200
now on the way out.
00:05:45.600 --> 00:05:48.750
Botticelli himself trained first as a goldsmith,
00:05:48.750 --> 00:05:52.100
which explains the crystalline precision of his draughtsmanship
00:05:52.750 --> 00:05:55.450
and why “virile” is the epithet commonly applied to him.
00:05:56.400 --> 00:06:00.300
In fifteenth-century usage, “virility” denoted absolute mastery of an art or skill
00:06:00.300 --> 00:06:02.800
- what we now call virtuosity
00:06:03.300 --> 00:06:07.600
which, for a Florentine painter in 1485, meant flawless draughtsmanship,
00:06:08.750 --> 00:06:10.750
a field in which Botticelli reigned supreme!
00:06:13.700 --> 00:06:16.850
Ultimately, his naked goddess is not classical, but gothic
00:06:18.050 --> 00:06:19.750
- the hair is long
00:06:21.500 --> 00:06:23.000
the body is longer
00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:25.700
the muscles have gone and the hips are broader
00:06:25.700 --> 00:06:27.700
the breasts are smaller
00:06:28.500 --> 00:06:30.750
So, is Venus a neo-medieval nude?
00:06:32.700 --> 00:06:35.950
In form yes, but by no means in subject:
00:06:37.450 --> 00:06:40.950
medieval artists used the nude in two contexts only, both of them biblical:
00:06:40.950 --> 00:06:43.600
sometimes, to symbolise innocence,
00:06:44.850 --> 00:06:48.900
but usually, to symbolise sin.
00:06:49.650 --> 00:06:54.500
This Venus might be an up-dated version of the nude who stands for innocence and purity,
00:06:54.500 --> 00:06:56.500
with gestures expressive of modesty.
00:06:58.150 --> 00:07:00.400
her absorbed and pensive face
00:07:01.450 --> 00:07:03.900
- the face indeed of the Virgin Mary,
00:07:03.900 --> 00:07:05.900
goddess of the Christians!
00:07:06.950 --> 00:07:10.100
And the greatest philosophers of the age endow her with virtues:
00:07:10.100 --> 00:07:12.100
Temperance and decorum ...
00:07:12.100 --> 00:07:14.100
charm and splendour!
00:07:15.200 --> 00:07:22.300
This is all part of a strange attempt to reconcile the Catholic religion with the pagan gods of antiquity
00:07:23.700 --> 00:07:26.250
earnest treatises are devoted to astrology,
00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:30.100
and a full-scale cult of Venus develops.
00:07:33.750 --> 00:07:36.400
Mothers who have just given birth are presented with decorated trays,
00:07:36.400 --> 00:07:38.400
on which the sovereign goddess is shown holding men in thrall,
00:07:38.950 --> 00:07:40.950
as if hypnotised.
00:07:46.500 --> 00:07:50.100
Supposedly a wedding present, *The Birth of Venus *
00:07:50.100 --> 00:07:53.450
might thus be an open and superlative version of the nudes
00:07:53.450 --> 00:07:56.150
traditionally painted inside marriage chests.
00:07:56.450 --> 00:07:58.750
which were thought to bring good fortune to newlyweds,
00:07:58.750 --> 00:08:00.250
excite their desire
00:08:00.250 --> 00:08:03.900
and even help to make their future children beautiful!
00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:09.650
The picture itself packs a powerfully sensual punch:
00:08:09.950 --> 00:08:14.350
The improbably entwined legs of the “lascivious zephyrs”
00:08:19.400 --> 00:08:21.950
The long and wildly tossing hair
00:08:26.500 --> 00:08:31.350
The wind-blown dress which clings suggestively to the Hora’s body
00:08:35.250 --> 00:08:38.200
Indeed, agitation and movement dominate the picture!
00:08:38.450 --> 00:08:40.820
And movement is becoming one of the Renaissance artists’
00:08:40.820 --> 00:08:43.220
favourite ways of expressing rapture,
00:08:43.220 --> 00:08:44.320
Ecstasy-
00:08:44.320 --> 00:08:46.320
and sensuality.
00:08:48.270 --> 00:08:53.650
Botticelli, after all, could desexualise nudes - when he chose to:
00:08:53.650 --> 00:08:56.920
Take the figure of *Truth *- sallow, stiff and flat-chested
00:08:56.920 --> 00:08:58.920
- who appears in his *Calumny of Apelles *
00:08:59.150 --> 00:09:03.150
• Or this hunch-backed *St. Zenobia, *with her near-male torso.
00:09:05.370 --> 00:09:10.070
Neither classical nor medieval, this scene is typical of the Florentine renaissance,
00:09:10.070 --> 00:09:12.520
always prompt to sing the pleasures of life and the senses
00:09:12.520 --> 00:09:14.300
-even when this involves cheerfully combining…
00:09:14.300 --> 00:09:17.370
Christian religion and pagan superstition,
00:09:17.370 --> 00:09:20.170
idealisation and carnal sensuality.
00:09:21.270 --> 00:09:23.620
And yet, a bare ten years later,
00:09:23.620 --> 00:09:26.950
the picture had already been forgotten - and it stayed forgotten for over three centuries!
00:09:28.730 --> 00:09:30.400
Part 3 : The double life of Venus
00:09:33.200 --> 00:09:34.870
In 1494, ...
00:09:35.270 --> 00:09:38.720
Florence abruptly becomes a “theocratic dictatorship”,
00:09:38.900 --> 00:09:41.670
led by the Dominican preacher, Savonarola,
00:09:41.670 --> 00:09:43.970
who reviles pagan nudity.
00:09:44.650 --> 00:09:47.470
Botticelli does formal *penance, *
00:09:47.470 --> 00:09:49.470
and goes back to painting biblical scenes.
00:09:50.520 --> 00:09:52.570
Venus escapes destruction…
00:09:52.570 --> 00:09:55.620
but not Botticelli’s fading popularity in his own lifetime,
00:09:55.620 --> 00:09:59.520
the last ten years of which pass without a single commission.
00:10:01.100 --> 00:10:02.570
The painters who count now
00:10:02.570 --> 00:10:06.570
are the ones who break completely with the medieval style…
00:10:06.570 --> 00:10:10.650
and give the human body volume and ultra-realistic, continuous contours.
00:10:11.970 --> 00:10:15.450
The daring features of *The Birth of Venus *are soon dismissed as old-fashioned :
00:10:16.300 --> 00:10:18.720
and flesh tones are rendered with incredible realism.
00:10:20.720 --> 00:10:23.950
The goddess can now go on open display
00:10:23.950 --> 00:10:25.950
in noblemen’s houses,
00:10:25.950 --> 00:10:27.950
and even look back boldly at viewers!
00:10:29.770 --> 00:10:32.050
As time goes on, she becomes steadily heavier,
00:10:34.050 --> 00:10:36.620
posing suggestively,
00:10:36.620 --> 00:10:37.900
laden with jewels...
00:10:37.900 --> 00:10:40.950
- and sometimes more courtesan than goddess.
00:10:42.600 --> 00:10:44.720
Botticelli’s vision is a thing of the past,
00:10:44.720 --> 00:10:48.720
and only makes a comeback in the nineteenth century,
00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:51.720
which, as we know, is schizophrenic:
00:10:51.720 --> 00:10:54.220
Never have so many female nudes been painted…
00:10:54.220 --> 00:10:57.750
... while people insistently proclaim that this is art,
00:10:57.750 --> 00:10:59.750
and must be viewed dispassionately
00:11:00.420 --> 00:11:06.150
“*with the purity of little children, who play naked together with no sense of shame”*
00:11:06.620 --> 00:11:10.370
The female body must remain chaste, without sexual connotations …
00:11:10.370 --> 00:11:14.450
while desire is transferred to the other figures in the picture.
00:11:14.870 --> 00:11:16.450
The effects of all this are disastrous:
00:11:18.100 --> 00:11:20.250
the resulting scenes become farcical,
00:11:20.920 --> 00:11:23.070
while rolling eyes,
00:11:23.070 --> 00:11:25.520
and swivelling hips
00:11:25.520 --> 00:11:28.870
constantly remind us that these “sexless” nudes
00:11:28.870 --> 00:11:32.970
are seething cauldrons of repressed sensuality, likely to boil over from one moment to the next!
00:11:36.720 --> 00:11:38.320
Enough is enough!
00:11:38.320 --> 00:11:40.220
A group of English artists and intellectuals
00:11:40.220 --> 00:11:42.870
attempt to find out where the trouble really started -
00:11:43.850 --> 00:11:46.070
and trace the problem back to Raphael,
00:11:46.070 --> 00:11:48.950
whose contempt for simplicity and truth,
00:11:48.950 --> 00:11:51.150
and taste for pompous, artificial poses
00:11:51.150 --> 00:11:53.150
they roundly denounce.
00:11:53.800 --> 00:11:59.220
Having settled scores with Raphael, they enthusiastically rediscover the *quattrocento *- particularly Botticelli! -
00:11:59.220 --> 00:12:01.220
and the sweet simplicity of his scenes
00:12:02.270 --> 00:12:03.820
bodies
00:12:04.500 --> 00:12:06.470
restrained gestures
00:12:06.970 --> 00:12:10.020
and melancholy, introspective faces.
00:12:11.250 --> 00:12:14.620
For them, this hesitant, shy Venus
00:12:14.620 --> 00:12:17.300
is beautiful because she inspires, not desire,
00:12:17.300 --> 00:12:19.300
but tenderness.
00:12:19.300 --> 00:12:21.820
By the end of the century, the matter is settled:
00:12:21.820 --> 00:12:25.520
reproductions of The Birth of Venus take British homes by storm,
00:12:25.520 --> 00:12:29.400
and Victorian England welcomes her as the acceptable face of sex:
00:12:29.670 --> 00:12:31.600
a woman who combines surpassing grace
00:12:31.850 --> 00:12:34.870
with the restraint on which decency depends.
00:12:35.800 --> 00:12:38.620
This is where the goddess’s last transformation starts:
00:12:38.620 --> 00:12:41.770
a woman with a figure men might dream of,
00:12:41.770 --> 00:12:43.770
who also seems blissfully unthinking.
00:12:44.420 --> 00:12:48.620
If Venus again excites desire, she now does so as a sex object,
00:12:48.620 --> 00:12:51.600
whose only function is to feed male fantasies.
00:12:52.300 --> 00:12:55.670
Alain Jacquet is not simply basing a visual pun on cockle shell and oil company,
00:12:55.670 --> 00:12:59.070
when he turns her into a petrol pump.
00:13:00.370 --> 00:13:03.250
He is also implying that she is now a utilitarian object,
00:13:03.250 --> 00:13:05.370
and that satisfying male desire is her purpose.
00:13:09.800 --> 00:13:11.770
And so, to understand who she really is,
00:13:11.770 --> 00:13:14.070
we need to look beyond cliché and context,
00:13:14.070 --> 00:13:16.070
and follow her
00:13:17.050 --> 00:13:19.000
back to her origins.
00:13:19.450 --> 00:13:24.550
If we do that, we may at last understand and feel the full seductive power of a picture
00:13:24.550 --> 00:13:27.300
which gives us a universal vision of perfect beauty
00:13:27.300 --> 00:13:31.150
- and which celebrates birth and life itself as well.
00:13:32.930 --> 00:13:35.600
Next episode: Marie-Antoinette and her children by Vigée-Lebrun
00:13:35.750 --> 00:13:38.230
A PR exercise?
00:13:38.240 --> 00:13:44.200
Find more informations on: www.canal-educatif.fr
00:13:45.100 --> 00:13:48.100
Written & directed by
00:13:48.100 --> 00:13:51.100
Produced by:
00:13:51.100 --> 00:13:54.110
Scientific advisor:
00:13:54.110 --> 00:13:57.100
This film was made possible thanks to the support of sponsors (including you?) and of the French Ministry of Culture
00:13:57.100 --> 00:14:00.100
Voiceover
00:14:00.100 --> 00:14:03.100
Editing and motion effects:
00:14:03.100 --> 00:14:06.110
Postproduction and sound recording:
00:14:06.110 --> 00:14:09.100
Musical selection:
00:14:09.100 --> 00:14:12.100
Music
00:14:12.100 --> 00:14:15.100
Special thanks
English subtitles: Vincent Nash
00:14:15.100 --> 00:14:18.090
Photographic credits
00:14:18.100 --> 00:14:18.100
Un production CED