Sandro Botticelli's poetic sense of beauty
captivated the Florentine court, but it was his subject matter which distinguished him from other
artists. He was one of the first Western artists since classical times, to depict non-religious
scenes. The idea that art could be for pleasure and not just to serve God, was new and radical.
When Botticelli revealed his latest painting in Florence in 1485, he also revealed a dramatic
shift in western art. Botticelli's inclusion of a near-life-sized female nude was unprecedented in
Western art. This wasn't Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden, shamed by her nudity. It wasn't
the naked hordes sent to Hell in Dante's Inferno. In fact this wasn't nudity as a symbol
of shame at all - or even sin - or wickedness. This was a celebration of the naked
human form, this was a celebration of sex. Renaissance translates as "Rebirth" and although
dates are debatable, we can start in Florence around the 14th century, when a renewed interest in
ancient Greco-Roman culture led to an intellectual and artistic rebirth. A rise in Humanist philosophy,
and radical changes in ideas about religion, politics and science. Ideas that would turn
art on its head. New ways of thinking spread throughout Europe inspired by ancient cultures,
that focused less on religion and more on the possible achievements of mankind. It was regarded
as the beginning of the "individual", the end of the middle ages, and the start of modernity. In this
period artists relied entirely on wealthy patrons. Luckily for us the Medici banking
family were the wealthiest of them all. Botticelli's patron was Lorenzo de' Medici, who
dominated Florence's political and cultural life. He was a cultured, intelligent man, who spoke
Latin and Greek. He was also a Humanist. Renaissance Humanism was not anti-Christian or
atheistic, it was a revival of moral philosophy. A move to purify and renew Christianity, Rather
than the "collective", emphasis was placed on free-will the value of individual
human beings and their capacities. Without this new way of thinking, it is doubtful
we would have had artists like Botticelli, Michelangelo and da Vinci. Humanism would
radicalise art, artists and subject matter. Botticelli would bridge the gap between Medieval
Gothic art and the emerging Humanism. We can see the different styles in these two images. The
first is late Gothic, the period that preceded the Renaissance. It is heavily stylised and flat,
flesh tones are pallid, expressions are vacant and it is unemotional. The second, a work that inspired
the young Botticelli, shows three-dimensionality, the figures are more human, more fleshy. Mary
is a mother not just a saint and Jesus is a realistic child. It is an image we can relate to
and empathise with. It wasn't just style though, Religious art had dominated the medieval period
and the Renaissance gave artists like Botticelli freedom to explore new subject matters...
albeit within a Christian framework. Narrator: "The island where Aphrodite the Greek goddess
of love was born out of sea spray on this very beach" The story of the goddess of love and
beauty starts with a castration. The god Saturn castrated his father Uranus and
then threw his genitals into the sea. Out of the seafoam an unbelievable
beauty emerges fully formed - Venus. The first thing to say is that the painting
does not represent venus's "actual birth" but rather the next part of the story, when
Venus arrives on the island of Cyprus on a shell. If we take the characters one by one, the
male figure on the far left is Zephyr, the warm spring winds. He is blowing Venus ashore.
Zephyr is locked in an embrace with his wife Chloris, who herself is blowing gentle breaths.
Roses fall around them - each with a golden heart. According to legend rose's first grew at Venus's
birth. We have seen both these characters before - in the earlier mythological Venus painting by
Botticelli, "Primavera", Zephyr raped Chloris and married her, and then turned her into Flora, the
goddess of flowers. A woman welcomes Venus with a red cloth covered in daisies. She is likely to be one
of the "Horae" or personifications of the seasons, summer in this case, as her dress is decorated
with cornflowers and primroses, and at her feet are anemones. All summer flowers. Hora wears a rose
girdle and has a necklace of myrtle, a plant sacred to the goddess Venus, an aphrodisiac, and a symbol
of love. Then there is Venus herself, also known as Aphrodite to the ancient Greeks. Botticelli
has painted her twice before, for "Primavera" and "Venus and Mars". This time she is naked: The
first full female nude of a non-biblical character. Botticelli was probably inspired by an ancient
marble statue in the Medici's collection, now known as the "Medici Venus", the first ever female
nude sculpture in classical art. Her modest pose is known as "Venus Pudica", a stance where a nude
female uses her right hand to cover her breast, while her left hand tries to hide her pubic
area. It is a pose that makes voyeurs of us all. The word "Pudica" in latin not only means "genitalia",
but also translates as "Shame". We just don't see this coy sexually suggestive pose with male
statues, either in antiquity or during the Renaissance. Naked men were associated with active
heroism, but women were passive sexual objects. In many ways the statue was a blueprint for a pose
that would have a cultural and artistic impact felt across western art for the subsequent two and
a half thousand years. The influence of sculpture statue-like pose, but she has alabaster skin. She
is unreal, an idealised figure not bound by natural laws. Botticelli painted a dark line around the
contours of her body making it easier to see her pale body against the equally pale background, and
emphasizing the marble-like quality of her flesh. Venus's figure is elongated in the Gothic style,
she appears graceful but she is not quite central and her weight isn't evenly distributed. The shell
would tip over if she placed her full weight on the edge like she does, but this is not the real world.
It has been said that Venus has what is called "The Gothic sway", a pre-Renaissance variation on the
Contrapposto pose, which places the weight of the body on the forward stationary leg, creating an
elegant curved pose often seen in Madonna figures, a theme we will come back to. The wind deities
are in an impossible convoluted embrace and like all the characters, appear weightless with
very little depth. They are all in the foreground, all on the same pictorial plane, which creates an
intense theatricality, and none of the figures cast shadows. This is not a mistake, but heightened
realism. If we compare this earlier painting by Botticelli to The Birth of Venus, we see true
realism - depth, shadowing and action taking place on different pictorial planes. As far as the
devoutly Christian Botticelli was concerned his religious paintings were "actual reality",
history even, and he painted them as such. Whereas with his mythological works, he is letting
the viewer know "stylistically" that what they are looking at is a product of imagination. What
we are seeing here, is movement and energy not seen before. Venus, pushed by the wind
is about to step off her shell onto the shore. Her hair is blowing in the wind, the
Hora rushes forward with a billowing cloak, roses fly through the air, the orange trees
rustle and drapery flaps around the bodies. It is a movement and energy found on ancient
Roman reliefs. Then there is the background. In contrast with all the flowers that
surround the four characters, the little bays we see along the shore are pretty barren.
The suggestion is that once Venus steps ashore, the land will blossom. Botticelli is not interested
in replicating nature, but rather in creating a dreamscape. The contrast between the green of
the sea and the paleness of venus is wonderful. The waves are mere gestures - a flick of the
wrist. The flowering orange grove references the sacred garden of Hesperides in Greek myth.
The detailing is exquisite, every blossom is tipped with real gold, which is used throughout
the painting for highlights. Botticelli trained as a goldsmith before he took up painting and his
strong outlines and ornamented decorative elements reflect that. There is a peculiar detail in
the painting which is these bulrushes. Out of place as they don't grow in salt water. It
is almost certainly a subtle phallic reference to the discarded member of Uranus that created
Venus. An in-joke for those clever Florentines. When botticelli painted The Birth of Venus,
approximately 10 percent of western paintings were non-religious, and of that 10 percent
the vast majority were portraits. Mythological paintings were a whole new art form, so it makes
sense that a devout Christian like Botticelli would incorporate familiar references. Botticelli
knew the philosopher and priest Marcilio Ficino whose mission was to combine ancient philosophy
with Christianity. His idea of a "Celestial Venus" as opposed to the pagan goddess, had her as a stand-in for
charity and love. I don't think it is a disguised Christian allegory, but in art history terms there
are familiar references that are worth examining. If we look at this standard composition of
the baptism of Christ, you can see what i mean Ghiberti's work had a semi-naked figure in the
middle, two flying angels on the left, and John the baptist with an outstretched hand. In this
baptism we see the same almost nude, motionless figure in the centre, a pair on the left hand side
and once again John the Baptist echoing the Hora. Then we can look at this painting of the Virgin
Mary, Botticelli painted a couple of years later. It has a comparable composition, the two women are
strikingly similar, and it would appear that he used the same model. Mary, like Venus, is dominated
by the scallop shell. In christian symbolism it represents "Baptism" and "Resurrection". In pagan
symbolism the shell is a representation of fertility or female sexual organs. It is entirely
possible that Botticelli was depicting Venus as an emblem of sacred or divine love. A familiar
Renaissance trope. Part of Botticelli's genius was to take a pagan story, a nude female, and make
them acceptable to contemporary Christian thinking. In this period paintings were generally done on
wooden panels, but this is on canvas. Suggesting the painting was almost certainly made for a country
villa, rather than a townhouse. Canvas was cheaper, easier to transport and was considered less formal.
It was originally painted on two separate canvases which were then stitched together. Botticelli used
the egg tempera technique for The Birth of Venus, a primary method of painting until after
1500 when it was superseded by oil painting First you break an egg yolk into a container,
then you add some water to make it easier to use, you dilute your pigment with water, and add it to
the egg yolk. Different quantities for different applications. For the body of Venus, Botticelli
used a very thin layer of tempura, giving more luminosity and a pronounced radiant appearance.
Tempura was perfect for Botticelli's paintings, which are known for their elegant qualities of
line and shape. Rather than shading wet-on-wet which you cannot do with tempura, you can see how
the golden colour of Venus's hair is achieved by light and dark rhythmic lines, to suggest texture.
He also added pure gold highlights. Here you can see he used delicate cross hatching rather than
the blending you would get with oil painting. Tempura is a difficult technique, but centuries
later artists still use it. So why? Because it has a graphic quality and a luminosity you don't get
in oil, and unlike oil paint it will not yellow or fade. The egg dries to form a solid protective coat,
so colour remains clear bright and pure over time. We don't know for sure who commissioned the
birth of venus but it was probably the de-facto ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de' Medici
and destined for the Medici villa Castello. Primavera was commissioned by Lorenzo as a
wedding gift for his cousin, also called Lorenzo, and in 1550 the art historian Giorgio Vasari
saw both paintings at the villa, so it's a strong possibility, The Birth of Venus was commissioned as
a companion piece to Primavera - a wedding gift. The paintings show two very different aspects of Venus
but both are in line with Renaissance thinking. The aforementioned philosopher and theologian
Marcilio Ficino described Venus's "Dual nature", as both the celestial goddess that inspired
intellectual love, and the earthly goddess that celebrated the power of procreation. And I
think "procreation" is the key to this painting. Noble families like the Medici didn't marry
for love, they married for power, accelerated by important arranged marriages. The function of
women was their ability to procreate, and the new bride's arrival into the Medici bed chamber is
paralleled by the arrival of Venus on Cyprus, who will bring life to a barren island. So in a
way the birth of venus is an image celebrating "Sex", but not in an erotic or sensual way. I've always
been struck by how venus is strangely "asexual" and her nudity is clinical. And maybe that's
because she represents sex as a necessary function. Sex for procreation, the ultimate
goal in a dynastic marriage. On february the 7th, 1497 a huge bonfire was lit
in the centre of Florence. Books on poetry and classical texts were burned ,along with paintings,
sculptures, mirrors and musical instruments. Anything considered frivolous was burned. Florence
had fallen under the spell of the extraordinary Dominican friar Geronimo Savonarola, whose "fire
and brimstone" sermons mesmerised thousands in the city. After a 60-year reign, the powerful Medici
family had been driven out of Florence by a mere priest. One who was determined to rid
the city of the Medici's "sinful" influence. One of Savonarola's most enthusiastic
followers was Botticelli, who according to some, willingly threw some of his
own paintings into the bonfire. We are fortunate that his greatest mythological
works survived, only because they were held at the Villa de Castello - beyond the reach of both
Savonarola's followers and Botticelli himself. After Savonarola's death, Botticelli was
increasingly seen as old-fashioned and irrelevant. Commissions dried up, and it was the beginning
of a sad decline into obscurity. He was at the height of his powers when he painted The Birth of
Venus, but by the time of his death in 1510, he was all but forgotten. The Medici's had moved on to a
new generation of artists. With The Birth of Venus, Botticelli really did produce a work of art that
was revolutionary, a work that changed the course of art history, and one that still looks intensely
modern to 21st century eyes. In fact The Birth of vVnus is as influential now as it was five
centuries ago. It is one of the most recognisable images in the world. The ancient Gods may have
given birth to Venus - but Botticelli gave her life.
