Michelangelo’s ‘Captives’

Leone

Michelangelo’s ‘Captives’

The ‘Captives’, much like the rest of Michelangelo’s art, have classical origins in their form and finesse alike ancient Roman and Greek statues where the detail in the marble captures the “ideal” image of the human body (athletic, strong, beautiful) and realistic characteristics.  The ‘Captives’ have both realistic and idealistic qualities, but the artistic emphasis is on recapturing human realism.  Art has always been used as an outlet to express political and religious views and the ‘Captives’ go beyond these themes.  The sculptures were never deemed finished, but their “unfinished” state enhances an appropriate representation of humanity.  The statues personify ideas about human identity; reflect the tension between humanism and religion; and give insight into Michelangelo as a person and as an artist.

Ancient Greece and Rome were a part of a very important era regarding the development of philosophical thinking and art (among politics, religion, and other things).  Many of the virtues, values, and ideas of these maturing civilizations were absent during the following medieval era.  The Renaissance began to build upon, alter, and improve art, architecture, and ideas of the Classical Greco-Roman period. Michelangelo combined classical ideas and ideals as well as personality in his sculptures.  The ‘Captives’ have a neo-platonic essence in their expressed personality.  Plato believed personal identity is not just something within us, but that it is made up of two parts: body and soul, which are both separated and completely independent of the other.  Michelangelo’s captive statue called the ‘Dying Slave’ relays the most evident picture of the dualist struggle and co-existence of the body and soul.  The posture and expression of the ‘Dying Slave’ depicts the soul being trapped within the sensuality of the flesh and struggling to separate from the slave’s body.  Perhaps it is called the ‘Dying Slave’ because its soul remains enslaved by the body and, in result, its soul (reason and knowledge part) is dying because it is unable to leave the cave (Plato’s analogy).  The rest of the ‘Captives’ are slaves physically trapped and seemingly trying to escape the marble from which they are sculpted.  They accurately depict Plato’s dualist perspective of personal identity, but in the same way they are showing humanism and its relationship with God (religion/Christianity).

Christianity during the Renaissance had a powerful, overbearing presence in everything.  The gigantic and magnificent architecture of the cathedrals gave anyone who entered them a feeling of smallness, making them feel crushed in the great presence of God.  The rise and heavy prominence of humanism promoted the power and possibility of humanity, which clashed with Christianity. A humanist believes that humans are the highest entity (“Man is the measure of all things”) whereas Christians believe God is the highest entity.  Michelangelo created the ‘Captives’ for the tomb of Pope Julius II, the first humanist pope.  Being a pope who is also a humanist presents difficulty with a struggle between personal beliefs, and Michelangelo symbolized that in his statues for Julius.  The ‘Captives’ appear to be trying to escape their bonds, twisting and contorting their bodies to be free, and the unfinished sculpted marble seems to solidify their state of being imprisoned.  Kenneth Clark compares the rough marble to the effect of shadows in Rembrandt’s paintings and reveals how it causes the viewer to focus on the features felt most intensely.  This seems to imprison the unfinished captives even though they sport no bonds, much alike how a neo-platonic humanist pope may be captured in his own beliefs.

Michelangelo channeled his own beliefs and feelings through his art.  He was a melancholic and passionate person who relayed his inner quarrels of thought through his creations.  Kenneth Clark describes the ‘Captives’ as “Michelangelo’s deepest preoccupation: the struggle of the soul to free itself from matter”, which circles back to Plato’s dualistic view of identity.  It is suggested by historians that Michelangelo was homosexual, so in that case the ‘Captives’ hold a truthful representation of cognitive dissonance between his homosexuality (“desire”) and devotion to God (“duty”).  His desire (soul) is struggling to be suppressed, controlled, and freed all at the same time, yet his duty (body) traps his desire (soul).  The ‘Captives’ depict the mental and emotional strain between his beliefs and identity.  His ‘Captives’ and many of his other works are best recognized for their quality of emotion and how they most always engage the viewer to feel the intense emotions engraved in the marble, as if the statues really do possess such energy and feel the power and unsettling sadness that they convey.  Through his sculptures he creates open-ended potential which leaves the viewer dumbfounded at the spirit and ability of the art and the artist.

The Renaissance was the rebirth of classical art, ideals, and ideas; all of which the ‘Captives’ possess.  The characteristics of the statues develop philosophical themes of the Renaissance and Greco-Roman periods and dig deeper into the meaning and existence of identity, thought, and humanity.  Appreciation of the human body and mind was drawn, painted, sculpted and written about by Michelangelo.  The vast amount of praise for his work throughout his lifetime and history following makes him one of the greatest artists ever for his ability to urge people then and now to understand and experience the grandness and capability of humanity, whether it be in the form of an inconceivably skillful Renaissance artist or the striking reification of humankind in art.

Ethical Dilemma - Morality

Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, carrying 45 people, crashed in the Andes Mountains in 1972.  A quarter of the passengers died in the crash and a few more passed away from the freezing temperature and injury soon after.  After spending 12 days without proper clothing for the harsh environment, the 27 remaining survivors had exhausted their food supply and heard on a transistor radio that their search party had been called off.  Being at such a high altitude and in low temperature, they needed food to survive, and the only available resource was the dead bodies of friends and family members.  If they ate the dead, they would have a better chance at survival, if they didn’t then they most certainly would die.  All of the people are/were Catholic and absolutely rejected the idea of cannibalism.  Their religious morality was keeping them from trying to survive because they believed that they would be punished by God.  Also, because cannibalism is deemed unacceptable, no one wanted to even consider the option due to guilt, fear, and the social construction.  In a utilitarian sense, it wouldn’t maximize pleasure for most people to eat, but it would maximize survival.  Morality is a matter of consequences.  They should eat the dead because that would be the rational thing to do.  Moral rules are rational rules and cannibalism is the rational option in this situation because it is in their self interest to be able to live.  If they ate their deceased loved ones, it is not because they desire too.  It would cause psychological problems for them, but it’s in their best interest.  

It was 2 months before the crash survivors were rescued, and they survived by eating the dead.

Siddhartha’s Journey of Self-Discovery

Siddhartha’s Journey of Self-Discovery

Siddhartha presents many important lessons throughout his journey in self-discovery and his goal to achieve Nirvana.  An overarching lesson presented is about the nature and importance of the development of self.  Throughout Siddhartha’s travels he did not necessarily try to discover “self” in spite of being determined to lose it.  More specifically, he tried to rid himself of ego in order reach Nirvana.  Nirvana is “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away.”  In the story, the self has a dual nature: the conscious self and the subconscious self.  The conscious self, composed of the ego, is the persona that Siddhartha and everyone else is caught up in, which is constantly preoccupied with humanized needs such as eating and sleeping.  The subconscious self is difficult to surface because it resides deep within, so when one can be in the constant presence and awareness beyond this self, then they are in the state of Nirvana.

Siddhartha encounters many trials and tribulations during his journey of self-discovery, which began when he first left home to become a samana.  The attraction of becoming a samana was the lifestyle of asceticism, meaning that among others Siddhartha would train to abstain from all pleasures (eating, sleeping, sex, etc.) in order to find enlightenment.  This is the first big step that Siddhartha takes in his journey and it is vital because it leads him to discover his subconscious self and be present in it.  He learns that he cannot escape his self simply by creating emptiness inside. Siddhartha believes that the universe will fill his created emptiness and extinguish his conscious self.

As time goes on Siddhartha accepts that no matter how hard he tries to escape his self, he will always come back to it.  He knows that continuing his time with the samanas will not help him achieve Nirvana.  He realizes during his time with them that permanent enlightenment cannot be achieved by shutting out the rest of the world.  Siddhartha says “The drunkard does indeed find escape, he does indeed find short respite and rest, but he returns from the illusion and finds everything as it was before. He has not grown wiser, he has not gained knowledge, he has not climbed any higher.”  What is meant by this is that escaping the self temporarily does bring some enlightenment, but reality and the self remains the same as before when one comes back to it.  Even though Siddhartha deemed his time with the samanas as wasteful, the experience enabled him to discover what doesn’t work to find permanent enlightenment and removal from the self.

Continuing on alongside Govinda, Siddhartha strives to find someone who will help him to find enlightenment.  Upon meeting and talking with Gautama, Siddhartha is able to understand that there is no method for enlightenment and he learns that no one can teach him because enlightenment is gained through experience.  Siddhartha advances significantly in his journey of self-discovery when he exclaims “nothing in the world has occupied my thoughts as much as the self, this riddle, that I live, that I am one and am separated and different from everybody else, that I am Siddhartha.”  It becomes necessary for him to allow his experiences to teach him and provide wisdom. By doing this Siddhartha becomes aware that he can only attain enlightenment and discover his self by staying present in the now and not focusing on the past or future.  This transition is crucial because in this moment of enlightenment he is fully aware of his subconscious self and without realizing it he is given a glimpse of the unity he’s looking for. Siddhartha’s development of self escalates because his journey begins to take a solidified path for him to discover who he is.

Looking beyond spirituality, Siddhartha experiences and notices the vast array of senses in the world.  Upon meeting Kamala, he delves into the sensory world and willingly lets all the senses that he had been suppressing absorb everything.  Siddhartha is aware of the developing push and pull between his evolving desire and personal reasoning.  This is evident as he refrains from succumbing to his desires in many instances with women where sex is offered, however, he allows his senses to influence him as soon as he and Kamala become lovers.  Soon, years begin to pass and although Siddhartha approaches the material world with the intent to learn what he can from it, he becomes completely immersed in it and he is no longer able to achieve enlightenment.  When he is middle-aged, Siddhartha has become everything he never wished to be: wealthy, renowned, successful, and living with love and lust. He has a dream that awakens his inner thoughts from when he was a young samana.  Based on this, he decides it is time to move on and start over again away from the material world.

Siddhartha’s second awakening occurs at the river and, unlike his first awakening when he left Gautama, it leaves Siddhartha distraught as he confronts the absence of his connection to his subconscious self.  Nonetheless, he allows himself to be “reborn” and continue on from the longstanding hiatus of his pursuit of self-discovery and enlightenment.

The last, most important lesson regarding self that Siddhartha learns comes from observing and listening to the river.  He sees the river and how it is in all places at once and yet how its essence remains the same.  The nature of Siddhartha’s journey of self-discovery is just like the river: his experiences are all different, yet his self remains the same. Siddhartha’s journey illustrates the nature and importance of self-discovery in the human experience that we all go through in life in all our pursuits.  Constantly being in the conscious self does not achieve enlightenment and it is important to have awareness of the subconscious self.

The River's Lesson

Leone Morello

The River’s Lesson

Siddhartha listens to the river as Vasudeva guides him along his new life of living with almost nothing and discovering enlightenment. He learns from the river that time doesn’t exist. The river is in all places at the same moment: the source, the delta, the rapids, the meanders, etc.. From this, Siddhartha realizes that only the present matters and is of importance and the shadow of his future means nothing for it is the future and not his “now”. He learns to listen from the water and that he only discovers more of the essence of his self and the world if he remains present. The river represents Siddhartha’s life itself, because it is constantly changing and seeking over difficult obstacles and gentle spurs.

Kamala's Songbird

Leone Morello

Kamala’s Songbird

Siddhartha has spent many years with Kamala and learning the business of being a merchant, but he begins to feel disgust and dissatisfaction within himself at everything he does. He dreams of the beautiful caged songbird belonging to Kamala, and in this dream the usual birdsong is nonexistent to his hearing. As he approaches the cage to see what is wrong with the animal, he notices that it has died. He opens the cage and throws the bird’s corpse out into the street, and from after that Siddhartha wakes up from the dream. He is rattled and goes to sit in his garden where he realizes that he is no longer on his original path and has subjected himself to what he hates most. The songbird represents Siddhartha’s self, his conscience. The bird dying represents his silenced inner voice and peace, and throwing away the bird makes him realize how blinded he had been by possessions, ego, etc.. After contemplating all this in his garden, Siddhartha decides that it is time to move on and continue his journey. When Kamala hears that he has left, she releases her songbird from the cage and watches it fly away. This represents Siddhartha continuing his journey with freedom again.

Siddhartha's Awakening

Leone Morello

Siddhartha’s Awakening

When Siddhartha leaves Buddha, he becomes aware of what his self is and needs thanks to the conversation. Siddhartha doesn't feel need to learn under Buddha because he has no need for teachers anymore to teach him about his self. He says “Truly, nothing in the world has occupied my thoughts as much as the Self, this riddle, that I live, that I am one and am separated and different from everybody else, that I am Siddhartha". Now that he is sure of what his journey’s destination is, he understands that he must continue to find his self on his own without friends or family, which is why he renounces them. “I will learn from myself, be my own pupil; I will learn from myself the secret of Siddhartha" is his newfound thesis of sorts. This is the causation of his changed perception of the world. His time as a brahmin’s son and as a samana was spent criticizing the nonsense he and others were following to ensure what he saw as a harmful illusion. Now, this awakening had given him freedom and honesty to create a path for himself that allowed him to take in everything wondrous that the brahmins and samanas ignored. His destiny is solely his own and he sees that now.

Is Gladiator a good representation of Roman History?

Leone Morello

Is Gladiator a good representation of Roman History?

Gladiator tells the story of a Roman general named Maximus who becomes an enslaved gladiator when the new emperor of Rome, Commodus, attempts to get rid of him. It becomes Maximus’ goal to overthrow Commodus as a personal act of revenge as well as to restore the republic. The movie skims over some heavily underlying themes of the Roman Empire correctly, but not with complete historical accuracy. Gladiator provides some truth in its representation of the actual brutality endured as a slave-turned-gladiator as well as the violence and energy accompanying the combat sports, but it does not accurately delve into the historical reality of Roman gladiators or the real historical events and figures included in the film.

Violence and brutality are key elements made focus throughout the movie. Although the presence of these themes are what make the life-threatening combative fighting between trained slaves an entertaining sport for Ancient Rome, the movie exaggerated these themes to be overly gory and dramatic for the sake of entertaining cinematic audiences. Unlike in the movie, there were formal rules in place and all gladiators fighting against each other would have different weapons that would make their fight a struggle. Gladiators would not have any disadvantage against their opponents, but in the movie Maximus and his fellow gladiators were put up against those with the advantage of extensive armour and better/advanced weaponry. Drama fuels the plot of Maximus’ aim to achieve personal revenge on Commodus and to fulfil Marcus Aurelius’ request to restore the republic, however this plot is inaccurate to the mindset of Rome at this time in history. Gladiator is set at a time when restoring the republic would be an unfavourable decision. This is because under the empire, wealth was distributed more equally, expanding territory made the empire richer than the republic, imperial projects and construction provided entertainment and more services to the public, and Roman citizenship and rights were given to more people in all areas of the empire.

Maximus aimed to fight as a gladiator until he could get close enough to kill Commodus. Even if he managed to survive after killing the emperor, he would still remain an enslaved gladiator. The movie depicted a personal agenda that could change things for one or a few people, but in Roman history everything revolved around the big picture. For example, Spartacus was a slave who strived to crush slavery in Rome’s republic and he revolted and escaped as a gladiator. He soon after accumulated an army of 120,000 people and together they all fought against the republic and defeated many Roman legions in order to escape slavery. In the movie, Rome appears thrilled at Maximus’ flipped misfortune and vengeance on his enemy, which makes him famous and honourable. This is a lesson incorporated into the plot that states you can achieve greatness and freedom from slavery if you just fight for it. This hints along the lines of stoicism, but it was not reality for Roman slaves and gladiators who died and could not leave enslavement. Even Spartacus fought and became heroic, but he remained and died a slave. The lessons are untrue to the nature of Ancient Rome and are only relevant to the movie’s plot. On the topic of slavery however, a Roman general like Maximus becoming a slave in Ancient Rome would be unheard of. It’s true that Roman citizens could become slaves if they didn’t pay their taxes or if they owed borrowed money, but it wouldn’t make sense for someone like Maximus to become a slave. The fact that his home was destroyed and his family killed may be used as evidence to argue that he could possibly be enslaved as an unidentified person, but in reality it still wouldn’t make sense for that to make him automatically become a candidate to slavery by Roman procedure.

Maximus is a completely fictional character, yet his personality and morals accurately depict what it was to be a Roman citizen and noble of his time period: a stoic person committed in obligation to the empire and concerned over virtue and duty. Existing figures such as Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were emperors of Rome as well as father and son. The truth to their characters in the movie portrays Marcus as a great philosophical emperor and Commodus as a bad emperor hated by the senate, but their cinematic story is not like what it is in history. The real Marcus ruled solo for awhile before sharing his reign with his teenage son Commodus. Marcus was not murdered by his son, he had been ill for a few years and died of natural causes. Commodus’ struggle for power against Maximus in the movie never occurred outside of fiction, but the Roman Empire did experience many power struggles in its days as a Republic. Commodus did fight as a gladiator and his sister did plot against him with the senate, so some elements of the storyline had a certain degree of truth.

Despite exaggerations, incorrect information and the fictional storyline, the movie portrays a powerful and exciting collage of ideas that creates an understandable version of what Roman society and culture was like. It remains historically imperfect regarding Roman history, with the butchered timeline and the invented, ignored or tweaked facts of the past, but the film wasn’t a poor example of what the Roman Empire was like.