Duccio’s block

It was badly dam­aged, ploughed deeply into its left side, smashed heav­ily in all cor­ners, chis­elled harshly in its base and then left in mud for sev­eral decades. All who touched it claimed stone was faulty, had veins that made it impos­si­ble to carve with­out break­ing it, that there is no fig­ure inside worth search­ing for, unveil­ing, admir­ing. A bad piece of mar­ble, expen­sively paid for and trans­ported to Flo­rence from far­away quar­ries of the pic­turesque Car­rara. Whis­pers had it such a gar­gan­tuan effort was futile from the begin­ning: luck wasn’t favour­ing Flo­rence. Many believed it. Why shouldn’t they? — bat­tle drums were thun­der­ing in the distance.

Paragraph

FLORENCE, LATE 15TH CENTURY

Florentine’s famed sculp­tor Donatello and his assis­tant Agostino di Duc­cio tried the mar­ble first, and later artist Anto­nio Rossellino was com­mis­sioned as well to com­plete what they had started. Yet all of them had aban­doned it roughly cut. Noth­ing was vis­i­bly emerg­ing from the stone yet and noth­ing promised to any­one. In 1501 the mem­bers of the Wool Guild and The Boards of Works of Cathe­dral (Duomo) of Flo­rence have decided to do some­thing with the mar­ble block lying down in the back­yard of the cathe­dral. The huge slab of weath­ered pure white mar­ble was known then as “The Giant.” They say it was over 5m tall, but unusu­ally nar­row, wide, badly pro­por­tioned for a decent fig­ure, weigh­ing well over a ton, lying in the dirt exposed to rain, hail, tra­mon­tanas (north­ern winds of Tus­cany) and snow, scorch­ing Julys and many frosty Decembers.

Some have advised it should be cut in two because it was already seri­ously dam­aged (it looked like a big, deformed let­ter ‘K’ after Anto­nio Rossellino has fin­ished with it), and then used for some­thing else rather than a sculp­ture. A tomb­stone per­chance? If it was not good for the liv­ing, it is bet­ter apt for the dead. Or per­haps it was good for two smaller, life-sized fig­ures, some well draped apos­tles or saints tucked in the niche of some lit­tle church? The Boards were res­olute — some­thing should be done with it, and they have adver­tised the oppor­tu­nity, call­ing artists for com­mit­ment and sub­mis­sions of ideas.

Many, includ­ing famed Leonardo da Vinci who has returned from Milan, waived at the oppor­tu­nity. Who cares about such a grotesque rock? Too much scuff on it! And stone chis­elling was not up to Leonardo’s taste; too dirty, and “all edu­cated peo­ple knew sculp­ture was a lower art” .. unlike, ah, paint­ing. Nonethe­less, the Boards have received a sketch from one sculp­tor that was promis­ing some­thing bold. The sculp­tor swore it will keep the mar­ble in one piece and carve the sculp­ture worth of Flo­rence. Dur­ing this time, the city-state was occu­pied in numer­ous wars, and the peo­ple needed encour­age­ment, a paragon to rein­vig­o­rate their spirits.

The sketch was sub­mit­ted by a 26 year old Michelan­gelo Buonarotti, then almost unknown Flo­ren­tine sculp­tor, a young artist who did not even have his own stu­dio. Unques­tion­ably too valiant attempt for some­one with no fame, pub­lic endorse­ment or recog­ni­tion. He had just arrived from Rome, where he had fin­ished his mar­ble piece ‘Pieta’, known only to a few Florentines.

Now, for the first time, he realised that the draw­ings that had sat­is­fied the Boards were no longer of any use to him. He had out­grown these ele­men­tary stages of his think­ing. All he knew for sure was that his was to be David he had redis­cov­ered, that he would use the oppor­tu­nity to cre­ate all the poetry, the beauty, the mys­tery and inher­ent drama of the human body, the arche­type and essence of cor­re­lated forms.

The Greeks had carved bod­ies from their white mar­ble of such per­fect pro­por­tion and strength that they could never be sur­passed; but the fig­ures had been with­out mind or spirit. His David would be the incar­na­tion of every­thing Lorenzo de’ Medici had been fight­ing for, that the Plato Acad­emy had believed was the right her­itage of man: not a sin­ful lit­tle crea­ture liv­ing only for sal­va­tion in the next life, but a glo­ri­ous cre­ation capa­ble of beauty, strength, courage, wis­dom, faith is his own kind, with a brain and will and inner power to fash­ion a world filled with the fruit of man’s cre­ative intellect.

His David would be Apollo, but con­sid­er­ably more; Her­cules, but con­sid­er­ably more; Adam, but con­sid­er­ably more; the most fully realised man the world has yet seen, func­tion­ing in a ratio­nal and humane world.

– Irv­ing Stone, ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy’

Almost no other story, or a con­text, relates to the power of vision and beauty bet­ter than this nar­ra­tive of Michelangelo’s astound­ing effort, when despite all odds and all the oth­ers who have failed in their attempts he has dis­cov­ered and chis­elled out a mas­ter­piece from the aban­doned block of mar­ble. That’s the statue of his David, today admired in the whole world as the epit­ome of the Renais­sance endeav­our and insight, and it’s a uni­ver­sal sym­bol of high­est of art.

Paragraph

INDIA, 15TH CENTURY

Another nar­ra­tive that flows almost par­al­lel with Florentine’s own is from the 15th cen­tury India. Indian sub­con­ti­nent is wit­ness­ing an uprise of the bhakti (love) move­ment inspired and led by Krishna Chai­tanya, a God-crazed monk and scholar from west Ben­gal. A very unusual lad, of Michelangelo’s own age when he had accom­plished David, and of abun­dant inspi­ra­tion. Under Chaitanya’s influ­ence bhakti move­ment spreads around the coun­try, every­one talks about it. It changes people’s lives, shifts social tides to be more respec­tive towards oppressed, poor, out­cast and women, change people’s expec­ta­tions from life, hopes and des­tinies. But what had led to it?

Before Chai­tanya, India’s social and reli­gious life — so closely weaved — were deeply influ­enced and mod­elled upon philoso­phies, teach­ings and result­ing world­views set by two fore­most fig­ures from the past: Bud­dha and Shankaracarya. Lit­tle we know about their where­abouts that can be con­sid­ered fac­tual, but their reach was vis­i­ble all around and long after them. They have both tried to chisel the mar­ble block of the real­ity and soci­ety with their vision and reach, but what have they accomplished?

Born in a royal fam­ily in north­ern India (or per­haps Nepal) in either 5th or 6th cen­tury BC accord­ing to sources, prince Sid­dharta (later to become Bud­dha, or wise) very much gives up on the world per­me­ated with mis­ery, despo­tisms, social injus­tice, unsat­is­fied emo­tions, cru­elty, famine and death. And he hits the mar­ble with a few strokes of ham­mer just to show us there’s no real sub­stance in it: mar­ble is faulty and we should with­draw inside instead, keep­ing our­selves away from sculp­ture. We can’t make it bet­ter or dif­fer­ent — if we think we can, we will only fall in deeper into the webs of entan­gle­ment, and thus more mis­ery. Chisel through no chis­elling, says he. He drops the tools, puts on mendicant’s clothes and leaves the block in the mud of the para­dox of life. We can com­pare Bud­dha and con­se­quent teach­ings with Agostino di Duccio.

One thou­sand and a few hun­dred years after the Bud­dha, Shankaracarya comes under the lime­light with his chisel and tries to make a few extra strokes to that same mar­ble of real­ity Bud­dha had started to carve and then aban­doned. Shankaracarya dri­ves his thrust deeply into one side on the slab as he talks to the audi­ence, smash­ing it severely and point­ing to all to see that mar­ble dust and chips scat­tered are sim­ply a block trans­formed; they don’t actu­ally exist. An unusual twist he does: There’s no rea­son to carve any­thing at all, says he. Every­thing is per­fect already just as one giant, unde­fined slab. Any attempt to dif­fer­en­ti­ate a form within it, to make any­thing out of it, is futile and is a sec­ond rate ven­ture. It’s no less than an illu­sion. He never asks him­self how come the real­ity has already cre­ated itself up to this stage. He waives at the oppor­tu­nity to think deeper, then glues back all the chips, spits on the dust, forms it into a mud and glazes the stone with it. He leaves the gnarled, deformed block fur­ther weath­er­ing in the hot Indian sun and mon­soon rains. Shankaracarya is our Anto­nio Rossellino.

Many cen­turies later, and after some oth­ers who have glanced upon the stone, Krishna Cai­tanya decides to take up the task of mak­ing some­thing sub­stan­tial out of the weath­ered block. Soci­ety crum­bles apart in lack of mean­ing and cohe­sion, women are den­i­grated, out­cast left in dirt and dis­ease. So called wise rule, but just to help them­selves live bet­ter at the expense of oth­ers. What idea is there to add, or to sub­tract? Isn’t it futile to do any­thing? Is it pos­si­ble to carve any­thing out of it now? Chai­tanya promises he won’t break the block — he’ll make one fig­ure, but com­posed of two. They’ll be same and dif­fer­ent, but beau­ti­ful and inter­twined. He chis­els out an amaz­ingly hand­some fig­ure of God-dess Radha-Krishna: the ideal of both human and divine virtues and beauty in the Indian aes­thet­ics. Both female and male divine, reflect­ing best of human val­ues, embraced in ecstasy of love. And we’re together with them too, never sep­a­rated, ready to carve out ever new joys and divine sports from the reality that never replen­ishes itself. Stone is sud­denly trans­formed into a mean­ing, and stone chips and dust fall into the envi­ron­ment apt for that mean­ing to be observed and under­stood. Sud­denly we have a real­ity that arches over every­thing accom­plished and imag­in­able in the past.

Paragraph

We can­not but be stunned by two approaches of Indian Duc­cio and Rossellino; the whole of their lives they’ve spend sug­gest­ing chis­elling is a futile act, and thus have restrained them­selves from any cre­ativ­ity or action. One won­ders what they and gen­er­a­tions of their fol­low­ers could accom­plish if they have devoted just a frac­tion of lamen­ta­tion and iner­tia to actual sculpt­ing? But they had no vision and have per­suaded mil­lions this life is a fail to no bet­ter avail.

How­ever, in the same man­ner as mas­ter Michelan­gelo, Krishna Chai­tanya unveils us the ulti­mate alchemy of life through divine cre­ativ­ity, love that is vis­i­ble as the cre­ative force all around us. Real­ity and life is to be sculpted with love, pas­sion and vision, not left aban­doned in dust. If it’s not cared for, it will be car­ried away by despots, vile and all the unin­spired minds who will make other people’s lives a liv­ing hell. Being inac­tive and unin­spired in life leads to neglect, mis­ery, social col­lapse, enabling tyrants to rise and rule. Divine calls innu­mer­able hands and hearts — insep­a­ra­ble parts of itself — to dwell and dare to unveil their own form, the embod­i­ment of love. Don’t be afraid to bet­ter your­self and to imag­ine a bet­ter real­ity, over­whelm­ingly beau­ti­ful, the mes­sage is of both Michelan­gelo and Chaitanya.

Paragraph

POST-MODERN WORLD

In the man­ner of Michelan­gelo and Chai­tanya, Uni­ver­sal­ist Radha-Krishnaism sees its pur­pose, course, and inspi­ra­tion in the post-modern world. To dis­cover the true poten­tial in real­ity around, inside the soci­ety and its culture’s often unde­vel­oped capac­ity many oth­ers don’t care about, have lost their inter­est in, or are blind to see any­thing new beyond the old, or the most obvi­ous: that the world is a weath­ered, neglected stone bereft of mean­ing, very close to break­ing apart.

But as long there are free men that breathe and can imag­ine a bet­ter life for all, there’s still hope.


Leave a Reply