demonology in art — essay
In reference to: Michael Cole’s The Demonic Arts and Origin of the Medium
Article
Thematic questions:
What is the article about? What are the ideologies that resonate with this perspective? What is the concept trying to prove?
Reading Notes:
René Descartes - French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician. Presents the condition of a dream.
A dream is considered a real thing
Dreams seem unreal (deceptions) because they do not present themselves as physical things like the eyes, body, etc.
Compare dreams to paintings. Painters paint by using their hands to showcase what the mind is sending to the hand.
Dreams depict real things, so dreams cannot be false
Skepticism is the experience of demonic possession.
The idea that a person knows physical truth will help prevent possession because deception and skepticism show weakness in the face of a demon.
Genio Maligno: a concept in Cartesian philosophy that refers to an evil demon or malicious genius. Hypotheticals suggest that there is a superior being, or demon (daimon), that exists to deceive and lead humans astray.
“Possession can be understood as a kind of art, and the possessive agent as a kind of artist” (4).
Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz proposed the idea that the artist is the creator of their own world. Illusionistic art requires that it be isolated from the real world to aspire to become reality.
Alter Deus: meaning the creator (God or deity)
During the Renaissance, artist when conducting their operations called upon supernatural help. The context of the case identifies “good” from “evil.” It is believed that God was the first creator and Satan, an actor, depicting the divine.
Dieu Mangué: “wannabe God”
Giovanni Battista Marino depicted this idea, critiquing Michelangelo’s Last Judgment piece. “Who is this painter who was so arrogant, so ignorant, that he wishes to correct the perfect images of the great smith of smiths?” (17).
Critiquing Michelangelo for trying to resemble God (changing the original narrative) through his paintings. That God is the only being to create, and painters copying his reality are frauds.
The ideology that artists are a magus (sorcerers), they can perceive an unknown reality with detailed paintings. Able to manipulate reality, deeming them a dieu mangué, which is viewed as demonic because it attempted to recreate God’s reality. This is why artists of all kinds, specifically painters and sculptors (even witches were considered artists because they create), are critiqued and analyzed for the creation, deemed a form of evil.
Diacceto believes that the medukm used by these demons to create is the “condensation of air.” The phenomenon can be depicted by many scholars; for example, Saint Paul had referred to Satan as “The Prince of the Powers of Air” (34).
The idea that other spiritual beings moved through the air.
Also believed that demons prey from above, so the material must be airy and invisible (unknowingly prey).
Necromancers use fire smoke when summoning demons, so they have something to occupy.
Benvenuto Cellini notes that the demons should not be feared since they are “only made of smoke and shadow” (43).
Figure 4 depicts demons taking possession through dreams because demons are made of air and can pass through bodies; they could also create nightmares in dreams to attempt possession.
Figure 6 depicts thoughts, visions, and dreams in a cloud.
Figure 8 depicts spirits painting castles in clouds.
According to those in the Renaissance era, the air in paintings can play a comparable role that is to that of air in sculptures, completing their work by entering its "body” (statue).
"Just as the master and father-or god, to use his greatest name-is maker of the gods in heaven, so is man the maker of the gods that are in the temple, content to be near to humans. Not only are humans illuminated; they illuminate as well” (79)
The statue-making process was viewed as something more than just giving earthly materials a shape, but rather “illuminating” them, just as God did with his creations (humans).
“The image of gods that humans form has been formed of both natures-of the divine, which is primary and more divine by far, and of that which is found among humans, namely, the material of which they are built. [In making gods, humans] represent them not only with the heads but with all the limbs and the whole body. Always mindful of its nature and origin, humanity persists in that imitation of divinity; just as the father and master made his gods eternal to resemble him, so does humanity make its gods with the likeness of its features.” (80)
According to the Asclepius, the artists sent demons into partially fashioned, but not yet breathing, “bodies”, bringing them to life. For example, it was written that certain materials, when properly used, could draw life heat into statues, while Trithemius instructed the artist to model spirits with wax, with the expectation that it could represent itself as it was meant to be represented. Just as God created Adam by “forming him from the earth's dust and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life,” the same “logic” can be applied with artists using sculpting being seen as “demonic”.
Often, when statues are depicted with a ribbon or thread being tied or “bound” to someone, it metaphorically or more metaphysically symbolizes a magician's enchantment (good or bad).
It remains now that we understand a thing of great wonderment, and that is the binding of men into love, or hatred, sickness or health, and such like... Also, the binding of a mill, so that it can by no force whatsoever to be turned round; the binding of a cistern, or fountain, so that the water cannot be drawn up out of them; the binding of the field, so that it cannot bring forth fruit; the. binding of any place, so that nothing can be built upon it; the binding of fire, so that it cannot be lit in a certain place, and that anything, however combustible, not be able to burn, even if a very strong fire is put to it” (100)
As written by Giordano Bruno, “the artisan binds with his art”. Also, the bounded statue may symbolize a fantasy of power, or it probably analogizes the conditions of the artwork and the artist.
The artistic world has always been a space for critique, innovation, and philosophical inquiry. Art does not merely reflect reality—it interrogates it, reimagines it, and sometimes even challenges its very foundations. The Renaissance, in particular, marked a turning point in artistic expression, where technical mastery and illusionistic representation reached unprecedented heights. Paintings became windows into alternate realities, and sculptures seemed to breathe with life. Yet, alongside this artistic revolution emerged a philosophical and theological unease—one that questioned the moral and metaphysical implications of such creations.
Michael Cole’s The Demonic Arts and the Origin of the Medium explores this tension by examining and comparing how Renaissance art intersected with contemporary beliefs about demonology, possession, and the nature of artistic creation. Through the lens of René Descartes’ meditations on dreams, skepticism, and demonic deception, it argues that artists were often perceived as magicians—or even as vessels for demonic influence (sorcerers or witches)—because their ability to craft illusions paralleled the deceptive powers attributed to evil spirits.
Central to the discussion is the idea that illusionistic art destabilizes the boundary between reality and artifice. Descartes, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, uses the metaphor of dreams to question the reliability of sensory perception. Dreams, though constructed from real experiences, are deceptive because they lack physical substance. Similarly, paintings are mere representations, yet their vividness can deceive the viewer into mistaking them for reality. Descartes ultimately concludes that true deception, the kind that threatens human understanding, is not found in dreams or paintings but in demonic possession, where the very fabric of perceived reality is manipulated.
This philosophical framework resonated with Renaissance critiques of art. Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz proposed that illusionistic art transformed artists into magi—figures who, through their craft, could "bring pictorial conventions to life." The more convincing the illusion, the more the artist appeared to wield supernatural power. This idea was both celebrated and feared. On one hand, artists like Michelangelo were revered as divine creators (alter deus), capable of rivaling God’s work. On the other hand, their ambition to reshape reality invited accusations of hubris, aligning them with Lucifer, the original dieu manqué—the failed god who sought to usurp divine authority.
Giovanni Battista Marino’s critique of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment encapsulates this anxiety: "Who was this Painter, who was so arrogant, so ignorant, that he wished to correct the perfect images of the great smith of smiths?" (17). By altering sacred narratives and rendering divine figures with human imperfection, Michelangelo was seen as overstepping his role, venturing into the realm of demonic imitation.
If artists were viewed as potential conduits for demonic influence, the question on how demons, and by extension, artists, create their illusions. The Renaissance believed that demons operated through the "condensation of air," a concept rooted in both classical and Christian thought. Saint Paul referred to Satan as "the prince of the powers of this air" (34), and theologians like Augustine and Marsilio Ficino elaborated on the idea that spirits could manipulate aerial substances to assume physical forms.
This theory had direct implications for art. Just as demons shaped air into deceptive apparitions, painters and sculptors transformed raw materials into lifelike representations. Francesco Cattani da Diacceto argued that demons, like artists, relied on "local motion"—the manipulation of physical elements—to craft their illusions. Benvenuto Cellini, recounting an encounter with necromancers, dismissed demons as "only made of smoke and shadow" (43), reinforcing the idea that their power lay in their ability to manipulate perception rather than to create ex nihilo.
Drawing from the Asclepius, a Hermetic text revered in the Renaissance, it notes that ancient idol-makers were believed to invoke demons to inhabit their creations, granting them a semblance of life: "Our ancestors… discovered the art of making gods… calling up the souls of demons or angels, they implanted them in their images using holy and divine rites" (81). This practice blurred the line between artistry and necromancy, raising concerns that Renaissance sculptors might be engaging in similar acts of forbidden animation.
Michelangelo’s Victory (Fig. 11) and Cellini’s Perseus and Danaë (Fig. 12) feature bound figures—a motif that interprets through the lens of demonology. In Plato’s Meno, the mythical sculptor Daedalus was said to bind his statues to prevent them from escaping, implying that artistic creation carried the risk of unintended vitality. Augustine, meanwhile, condemned idols as vessels for "unclean spirits, bound to these same images by that wicked art" (94). The binds on Renaissance sculptures could thus symbolize both the artist’s control over his creation and the latent danger of demonic possession.
Giordano Bruno’s assertion that "the artisan binds with his art" (100) further complicates the matter. If artists were seen as binding spirits into their works, then their creations were not merely representations but potential sites of supernatural intervention. This idea finds echoes in Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy, where binding spells are described as a means of controlling love, health, and even natural forces. The bound statue, then, becomes a metaphor for the artist’s power—and his vulnerability—to forces beyond human comprehension.
The exploration of demonology in Renaissance art reveals a profound cultural anxiety about the nature of creativity. Artists, in their quest to rival divine creation, were caught between reverence and suspicion. Their ability to manipulate perception—whether through paint, stone, or air—aligned them with the very forces that theologians warned against.
Ultimately, The Demonic Arts and the Origin of the Medium challenges the question to reconsider the Renaissance artist not just as a craftsman or innovator, but as a figure operating at the threshold of the sacred and the profane. The medium of art—whether pigment, marble, or air—was not neutral; it was a contested space where the boundaries between reality, illusion, and possession blurred. In this light, the Renaissance’s greatest artistic triumphs were also its most unsettling, forcing the question of the artist’s expression being possessed, a source of magic, or something far more ambiguous.