<P>... perhaps the most beautiful example of ecstatic movement in the whole of painting...the suspension of our reason is achieved by the intricate rhythms of the drapery which sweep and flow irresistibly around the nude figures . Their bodies, by an endless intricacy of embrace, sustain the current of movement, which finally flickers down their legs and is dispersed like an electric charge . </P> <P> Botticelli's art was never fully committed to naturalism; in comparison to his contemporary Domenico Ghirlandaio, Botticelli seldom gave weight and volume to his figures and rarely used a deep perspectival space . Botticelli never painted landscape backgrounds with great detail or realism, but this is especially the case here . The laurel trees and the grass below them are green with gold highlights, most of the waves regular patterns, and the landscape seems out of scale with the figures . The clumps of bulrushes in the left foreground are out of place here, as they come from a freshwater species . </P> <P> It has long been suggested that Botticelli was commissioned to paint the work by the Medici family of Florence, perhaps by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici (1463--1503) a major patron of Botticelli, under the influence of his cousin Lorenzo de' Medici, "il Magnifico". This was first suggested by Herbert Horne in his monograph of 1908, the first major modern work on Botticelli, and long followed by most writers, but more recently has been widely doubted, though it is still accepted by some . Various interpretations of the painting rely on this origin for its meaning . Although relations were perhaps always rather tense between the Magnifico and his young cousins and wards, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco and his brother Giovanni di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, it may have been politic to commission a work that glorified the older Lorenzo, as some interpretations have it . There may be a deliberate ambiguity as to which Lorenzo was intended to be evoked . In later years hostility between the two branches of the family became overt . </P> <P> Horne believed that the painting was commissioned soon after the purchase in 1477 of the Villa di Castello, a country house outside Florence, by Lorenzo and Giovanni, to decorate their new house, which they were rebuilding . This was the year after their father died at the age of 46, leaving the young boys wards of their cousin Lorenzo il Magnifico, of the senior branch of the Medici family and de facto ruler of Florence . There is no record of the original commission, and the painting is first mentioned by Vasari, who saw it, together with the Primavera, at Castello, some time before the first edition of his Lives in 1550, probably by 1530--40 . In 1550 Vasari was himself painting in the villa, but he very possibly visited it before that . But in 1975 it emerged that, unlike the Primavera, the Birth is not in the inventory, apparently complete, made in 1499 of the works of art belonging to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco's branch of the family . Ronald Lightbown concludes that it only came to be owned by the Medici after that . The inventory was only published in 1975, and made many previous assumptions invalid . </P>

Who was the birth of venus painted for
find me the text answering this question