‘The Creation of Adam’ is often regarded as a masterpiece of the Renaissance. It is everywhere in modern culture, with the image of God and Man’s hands almost touching being a universally recognised symbol.
‘The Creation of Adam’ is a small fragment of a programme of wall decorations by the painter Michelangelo (painted 1508-1512) which line the walls and ceiling of the Vatican's Sistine Chapel, a place of great symbolic meaning to the Catholic Church. The frescoes were commissioned by Pope Julius II to serve as a backdrop to Catholic religious services and ceremonies which took place in the Chapel, such as the electing and inaugurating of new popes, and exist as a symbol of God's power and presence among the Papal Authority. Although still used for important services, the Chapel is now filled with thousands of tourists a day, many of which are there to view the works on the wall rather than appreciate the Chapel for its religious significance. Just as many, I might suggest, are there specifically to see ‘The Creation of Adam’ because of how mainstream the piece has become, as it has been widely categorised as a piece of art, and pieces of art are, in modern culture, there to be looked at.
Guards make staunch efforts in the Chapel to stop visitors from taking photos and tend to enforce this rule fiercely. While visiting to the Sistine Chapel during a holiday in Rome in late 2017, a woman near me attempted to take a secret photograph of the famous ceiling but was stopped by a guard who loudly insisted she delete the photo in front of him.
The Vatican prohibits any photography or video to be taken of the Sistine Chapel following an agreement which came about as a result of Japanese corporation Nippon, who filmed the restoration of the Chapel in the 80s and 90s, requesting to own the rights of the post-restoration visuals within the Chapel, thus banning any photography by the public. This is an unusual agreement, in itself, and the idea of a media company owning the visuals of religious pieces is, in my opinion, completely inappropriate and exploitative.
The agreement was only intended to be implemented during the restoration and for the three years after it was completed. However, the Vatican continued the ban. Perhaps an attempt to reduce flash photography which could damage the pieces, perhaps an effort to sustain a sense of sanctity , perhaps an attempt to keep tourists buying postcards, bookmarks and a thousand other things with the famous frescoes printed on them which fill the giftshops of the Vatican.
Michelangelo’s paintings have not just been stamped as ‘art’ because of is skill, their aesthetic value or religious symbolism, but because they have been commercialised by the mass media. Many of us will never have had the opportunity to visit the Chapel, but will have seen ‘The Creation of Adam’ elsewhere; in a book, a postcard, a tattoo or a reproduction. It has been severed from its context and taken as a piece in itself, allowing it to be circulated as a display of aesthetic beauty and Michelangelo’s talent, ignoring that it was intended to exhibit God's earthly sovereignty manifested in the Della Rovere Papacy. Of course, we cannot be expected to understand the Chapel frescoes exactly as Michelangelo, Pope Julius II, or a sixteenth-century Italian did, but we can still make an effort to resist the draw of the cultural and mass media to appropriate them and see them as purely “art” rather than “religious artefacts”.
In her book ‘Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art’, Mary Anne Staniszewski states that “Art came into being in the late eighteenth century". This is because, she claims, this was when the West’s monarchies and authoritarian political systems began to break down, signified by the French Revolution in the 1780s and 1790s. This was the start of a restructuring of identity in the Capitalist western society where individuals began to have a sense of free will separate from the state, therefore meaning ‘artists’ could now create art free from the chains of political and religious patrons.
This is a massively bold statement to make. But this idea, of art only being able to be created when an individual does so by their own free will and according to their own beliefs, interested me, especially when I considered the religious context of ‘The Creation of Adam’. I will explore this idea further as oppose to Staniszewski’s more specific claim of art only existing from 1780s western civilisation.
Michelangelo was ordered to paint the Chapel’s frescoes by his patron Pope Julius II and did not want, initially, to undertake the commission. The pieces, although utilising Michelangelo’s skills, were directly influenced in their vision and meaning of this external religious and political order. If we are to follow Staniszewski's definition of an artist, as one who has full authority over their pieces, then surely Michelangelo can not be considered the artist of the frescoes as he had little autonomy over them. In an interview with Dezeen, artist David Shrigley commented on his commission to design the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, in 2016 saying, "I'm happy in the world of fine art, because you can kind of do whatever you like, whereas you can't in the world of design as there's always a client saying they don't like something you've done." The separation between artist and designer in this comment is in accordance with the autonomy they have over their craft further supports the notion that to be an artist one must have full authority over the pieces they create.
In an interview with the Tate, comedian Harry Hill compared being an artist to a career as a comedian. “The comedian has to respond to his or her audience. In comedy, I’ve had many jokes which I thought were really funny, but if the audience doesn’t laugh, you end up having to drop them. An artist can do what he or she likes. You may not sell many paintings, but you’re still an artist.”
Indeed, although art is often put on display in galleries, inviting observation and judgement by others, this is not an essential part of it being a work of art. Comedy, in contrast, depends on the audience to understand and find the content amusing, whereas art, both fine and performance, can exist in itself without relying on the understanding of an audience. Therefore, an artist can indeed do “what he or she likes”. The art can be appreciated for its aesthetic, entertainment, or historical value even if the viewer does not understand the artist’s intentions. This might, then, counter my earlier claim that ‘The Creation of Adam’ should not be considered art. In the modern day, a viewer might lay eyes upon the fresco and not understand the historical or religious significance but still be able to appreciate Michelangelo’s skill at painting in beautiful naturalism the human form ,or the magnificent visual manifestation of nature and divinity. Of course, I still stand by the fact that the paintings should not be overly commercialised because of the risk of losing a full appreciation of the pieces by forgetting their context.
I also would maintain that the pieces are still not wholly “art” as they have have only recently been viewed as such. This could be a result of said commercialisation warping the meaning of the paintings in the public’s eyes, but also perhaps because, as Staniszewski touched upon, modernity has brought with it a changing relationship between humans and the world. Religious and political influence on people’s lives has declined and so our sense of the importance of religious artefacts has perhaps declined too. Viewers as well as artists have gained a sense of freedom, a sense of self which brings an ability to form one’s own opinions, separate from religious teachings or political influence, and stand by them.
Additionally, as education and access to the arts becomes more widespread, more people are able to view works such as those in the Chapel. Whereas previously they would have been reserved for a small number of religious figures, now thousands of tourists from around the world have access to them, both in person and not. The pieces' closeness with its context has been diluted because their circulation among and by such a wide variety of people.
I think we should all make active efforts when considering pieces to reflect on their contexts as a sign of respect for these works, and not take them simply at face value . One must not lose oneself in the modern mass media handling of art. ‘The Creation of Adam’ is absolutely a beautiful piece, but seeing its image so often separated from its context can make us forget where it is from, how it came to be, and what it symbolises, which are all important aspects of fully appreciating any piece, whether art or artefact.
Rosie Day
References
1. 'Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art' (1995) by Mary Anne Staniszewski
"Art came into being in the late eighteenth century" Page 102
2. Interview with David Shrigley: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/09/29/david-shrigley-interview-fourth-plinth-really-good-thumbs-up-sculpture-trafalgar-square-london/
3. Interview with Harry Hill: https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-19-summer-2010/occupational-therapy