Paragone Discussion: Group Summary

Dear All:

As a summery of the Paragone we as a group decided that there were some strong and some weak parts of the discussion. Some of our group members could relate to the last part of Leonardo's discussion since it pointed out that paintings have 2 perspectives and sculpting has none, and how paintings are more beautiful because of the perspectives and color. Our group thought that his strongest point was the fact that sculpting requires physical fatigue and in painting you have more mental fatigue. However, the weak part of the discussion was how painters have to carefully evaluate quality and quantity of shadow and light, and then saying nature provides this for a sculptor. The sculptor like a painter has to think about what shadows will be created from different light angles. The sculptor's on the other hand had a strong argument that they almost can’t mess up, because they can’t paint over it, if they chizzel away to much marble then they can go back and reattach it. They had a weak point when saying that "his work is more enduring, for it to fear from humidity, as well as fire, heat, and cold." All of these components can more negatively affect painting if left out than a sculpture. Both are susceptible to the elements. Despite of both sides of the argument being quite convincing we as a group decided that comparing the two different mode of art would be like comparing apples and oranges. There are too many significant differences to ever say one is better than the other. The whole point is that sculpture and painting are two different media, and cannot be compared, any more than you could say that a piano is a "better" instrument than a violin- each is unique. Each expresses in a unique way. We believe that both the form of art is quite challenging and noble. It is only in the mind or ego of an artist that arguments about one medium being intrinsically better or nobler than the other take place.

Monet Group