As the end of my semester meets the announcement of the new Pope the story of Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, it’s very relevant.
In his effort to beautify Rome, prolific art patron Pope Julius II wanted the most skilled and renowned artists.
🧵1/17 thecatholicherald.com/the-staggering…
Michelangelo’s statue of David, and other works from Christian history, made him the perfect choice. Rightly, his Pietà is seen as the start of the High Renaissance. The Pope wanted Michelangelo to paint the Sistine, but the artist considered himself a sculptor, not a painter.
So, Michelangelo set to work to design, sketch, paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, the backdrop of the altar, and the interior surrounding the clerestories. To entice, the Pope also gave Michelangelo a rich commission to design His papal tomb.
The designing, sketching, painting, took about 5 years, and the work was completed in 1512z
Despite his initial reluctance, Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel ceiling of course became one of the most celebrated masterpieces of Western art.
my own picture below
Reception to the Sistine was overwhelmingly positive. The intricate details and the grandeur of the scenes from the Book of Genesis left people in awe. The frescoes particularly were praised for their artistic brilliance and theological depth.
It was a masterpiece.
However, the Last Judgment fresco, behind the altar, sparked controversy w/its depiction of nudity. Some deemed it inappropriate for such a sacred space. After Michelangelo’s death, the Council of Trent ordered the fresco to be “updated” to align w/contemporary Church standards.
Daniele da Volterra, a pupil of Michelangelo, was commissioned to dress the figures, earning him the nickname "il Braghettone" (the breeches maker). Edits were extensive. He covered figures w/drapery & fig leaves, and even altered some completely, like St. Catherine & St. Blaise.
The revised works faced mixed reactions. Some supported restoring decorum, while others criticized the desecration of a masterpiece.
The edits reflected the moral standards of the time, where the Church sought to ensure religious imagery aligned with its teachings and values.
This reply to the Renaissance included the "Fig Leaf Campaign," initiated by the Church in the 16th C. Pope Innocent X ordered the alteration of art like Velasquez’s ‘Rokeby Venus’ to adhere to modesty standards, with a nude Venus being given drapery. artrkl.com/blogs/news/the…
Altho obviously unauthorized by Michelangelo, da Volterra's edits were not only about censorship but perhaps also preservation. Without intervention the fresco might have been destroyed due to the Counter-Reformation's strict standards. It wouldn’t have been the first time
Just 15 years before the completion of the Sistine Chapel, Girolamo Savonarola held, on what we know as Fat Tuesday, his Bonfire of the Vanities, at which thousands of objects, including cosmetics, art, books, and other items considered sinful were destroyed.
Of course, it took about 90 days for Savonarola to be
excommunicated, and by May of 1498 he was tortured and burned alive in the Piazza della Signoria, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio (City Hall) in the same spot where he had conducted his own ritual.
Here, Attorney Casini and I enjoy a day on the town square and mark the spot.
Eventually, the Counter-Reformation led to Baroque art. Leaders like Cardinal Gabrielle Paleotti established guidelines for religious art, insisting that it should be clear and didactic. He even wrote a treatise: “Discourse On Sacred And Profane Images” shop.getty.edu/products/disco…
Ultimately, masters like Caravaggio and Rubens emerged, making works that were both engaging and visually unambiguous, in adherence to Church directives.
Coincidentally (?) the Uffizi (“offices”) of the Medici, the ruling class of Florence, is now a world-class renaissance and Baroque museum which hosts an enormous Caravaggio collection, steps from the site of Savonarola’s death in front of City Hall. uffizi.it/en/events/cara…
Sadly, the tomb of Pope Julius II never did achieve the grandeur Michelangelo had planned, with its dozens of life-sized sculptures, instead ending as a wall mount rather than a stand alone structure, and the master declared it his ultimate failure.
GRANTED: MTD DMCA claims, w/prejudice
GRANTED: MTD unjust enrichment claims, with leave to amend
DENIED: MTD Copyright Act infringement claims
DENIED: MTD Lanham Act claims
GRANTED: MTD breach of contract / implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, w/prejudice
"In Oct 2023 I largely granted the MTD brought by defs. Stability, Midjourney and DeviantArt. The only claim that survived was the direct infringement claim...based on Stability’s alleged “creation and use of ‘Training Images’ scraped from the internet into the datasets...
Much ado about Beyoncé permitting the VP to use her hit “Freedom” at campaign events. While not an endorsement, it does signify approval of Harris' candidacy. Bey is known for few clearances of her music, so permission is significant.
But is it necessary? nytimes.com/video/us/polit…
The answer comes down to classic legal canon: it depends. Depends on which rights you're asking about, which use (comp or sound recording?) even the place of the event and possibly the manner of use.
from a composition perspective - how many writers are on it? I know the there are many writers, multiple publishers, across several PROs. Did the campaign clear it? Do they need to? How much does political speech carry the day?
This is a good analysis of the label-side (and underlying pub side) of things but misses the bigger issue to artists in “the web of legal complexities around a given deepfake song”, @cheriehu42, bc it thinks of things in terms of the music ‘industry.’
“Do artists get compensated for being included in training datasets? As we covered in previous research, consent, attribution, and compensation for AI model training data are less clear-cut than traditional sampling in the music industry.”
Claiming work is a dense layering of vocals in an acapella gospel track. Defending work has something similar as a vocal bed. Little chance either is original, so the claim is limited to alleged sampling of the SR. How they mean to prove that, I dunno.
“It appears very clear to me that the two songs are very similar” says Pl.’s musicologist, but of course that’s not sufficient. Not only must those portions be substantially similar but also original to the claiming work.
He goes on to say “[i]t is obvious that someone lifted the Take 6 sample and must be held accountable.”
That’s a different claim: infringed in that it’s literally using an uncleared sample, it runs to the sound recording, not the composition. Here I’d assume they have some proof.
One thing interesting in this is that publishers have long enjoyed a better reputation than labels, but labels big & small, with their trade orgs, have made more news (and more friends) of late.
People still searching for a genre title for what @_love_holly_ has dubbed Black Opry. She gave you one if you need it, but also it’s Americana. It’s country. It’s folk and it’s roots. No one calls Diana Krall “white jazz”, you don’t need to make “African Americana” a thing.
I support Holly G and all she’s doing, it’s a social movement as much as anything. If you want to call it something, call it what the artists doing the work call it. Don’t try to distinguish it for purposes of genre.
Aside from genre being dead, just let people have something without needing to label it so it suits your compartmentalization needs. If the artists call it African Americana, go with it. If they call it country, roots, blues, folk, then that’s what it is.