Discussion #7: The "problem" of Mannerism

Pontormo Deposition from the Cross 1528

    

    Mannerism or Maniera is considered a late style of the sixteenth century. The group of artists working in this way were mainly influenced by High Renaissance master Michelangelo. “Michelangelo's authority impressed a sculptural example on Maniera painters, not only in his works in stone but by his sculpturesque painting” (Freedberg, 287). Raphael is also considered an influence because "in his last and most influential years, [took a] sculpturesque cast into his art [which] tended to dictate a stressed plasticity” (Freedberg, 287). Artists like Michelangelo influenced mannerists due their sculpturesque styles (plasticity) as stated by Freedberg “the hard-surfaced, plastically emphatic form of many high Maniera pictures, which has so large a part in this effect, comes often from the deliberate imitation of a sculptural style” (287).

    Maniera has "problems" in that it is not drawn from life or nature. It was after the artist “Raphael [that] there was suddenly a decline. Artists abandoned the study of nature, corrupted art with la maniera or, if you prefer, a fantastic idea based on practice, and not on the imitation [of nature]” (Smyth, 22). In the “mid-sixteenth century, painters of [the] day were using the word maniera derogatorily in connection with painting in which one saw forms. Faces, and (by implication) bearing and movements that were almost always alike” (Smyth, 35). It must be this extreme dislike of the style since it's beginning that it has become so controversial and no longer included in our History of Italian Renaissance Art. 

    Freedberg, in fact, did not like the term Mannerism or Maniera (but used them anyway), he much preferred to classify this style of art as "anti-classical". This makes sense because of the properties of the particular style are somewhat the antonym to the High Renaissance which was classically based. Maniera painting has characteristics of sculpturesque modelings or plasticity, elongated figures, extreme detail, angular poses, and is created usually by examining other artwork (not directly from life). “More pervasive are the principles of angularity and of spotting the composition with angular elements. Elongation is not central to maniera, but these two conventions are” (Smyth, 43). Maniera painters considered “line, modeling, and color in painting di maniera [to be] better suited to serve a uniform ideal than nature's variety” (Smyth, 49).

   However, “Maniera painting is an art of figures, as most central Italians thought painting should be” (Smyth, 49). The emphasis on grace and elegance in this style correlate to the word maniera, which "has an old association with style" (Smyth, 98). Some believe mannerism to be a decline in Florence and Rome after 1530 or 1540, the monotonously uniform figures could be easily disregarded. However, according to Smyth, “not only is Mannerism now considered valid for the Cinquecento, but it also begins to be applied as the name for a subjective, surrealistic, anticlassic phenomenon that critics see recurring in European art.” (Smyth, 98-99)

    I find the work of Mannerism exciting, the strange color schemes and weird figures are refreshing. I think mannerism is still a style sought out today. Contemporary artist John Currin must be inspired by this period of art, as well as the Pop Surrealist movement. Pop Surrealism correlates to the surrealistic characteristics of mannerism. I look forward to learning more about mannerism is class, and if others agree that mannerism is still influential today. Maybe more influential than the High Renaissance?

Lori Early LEILA
oil on board  2007 (Pop Surrealist)

John Currin The Old Fence 1999

John Currin Thanksgiving 2003

Discussion #6: Michelangelo's The Last Judgment

Discussion #6: Michelangelo's The Last Judgment

Smart History: Michelangelo, Last Judgment, Sistine Chapel, fresco, 1534-1541

Michelangelo, The Last Judgment, Fresco in the Sistine Chapel 1537-1541

      

     

       Michelangelo's The Last Judgment is a fresco on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. It was unveiled in October of 1541, Michelangelo completed the painting in five years time (Hall, 132). The numerous nudes inside of the chapel was very controversial. It was even during Michelangelo's lifetime that some argued the fresco should be torn down, or manipulated, “Pope Paul seriously considered having the fresco destroyed” (Hall, 189). The Pope even asked Michelangelo “to fix the nudes himself; the painter replied, “Tell the pope that it is a small matter, but let him fix the world, pictures are quickly mended” (Hall, 189). The decision to correct some of Michelangelo's errors was ordered before his death in February of 1564 (Hall, 190). It was throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that loincloths and drapery were added to the figures, some of these cover-ups were removed in the latest restoration (Hall, 190). However not all of these additions were removed because “they had become a historical part of the painting” (Hall, 190).

      These images in The Last Judgment have been argued to violate the second commandment “You shall not make for yourself any graven image” (Hall, 190). The nudity was opposed because it was “feared that it would distract and make the image ridiculous” (Hall, 192).

      Although this grand fresco ruffled a lot of people's feathers, it was one of the most widely copied and distributed paintings in Europe (Hall, 192). Because of the inexpensive medium of printmaking, a wider audience could now view the artwork. An uneducated audience laughed at the fresco rather than “being moved to devotion” (Hall, 192). It is thought that because of this change in audience (The Last Judgment was only meant for those with access to the Papal chapels) that encouraged the Church to “correct” the painting (Hall, 192).

     Marcia Hall's excerpt on Michelangelo's The Last Judgment was more factual based without much emotion behind the interpretations of the fresco. Leo Steinberg's “Michelangelo's Last Judgment as Merciful Heresy” had much more attitude and passion. Steinberg suggests that Michelangelo doubted the eternal torment of sinners and the vindictive, retributive nature of the Last Judgment – which was committing heresy in the the 1500's (3). Michelangelo's Last Judgment scene is radically different from previous and contemporary depictions in that: Christ is not seated as a judge, Christ is not angry, there are no distinctions of the angels, and no distinct separation of Heaven and Hell. Steinberg interprets the ambiguity of the composition and the emotions of the figures to be purposeful, to be based on what Michelangelo really thought of his religion in his later years. Here I have comprised a list of his arguments that back up his theory:

1. The intent in Michelangelo's Christ is unknowable
2. That the imperturbability of Christ's face turns all interpretation into projection
3. That the gesture of Christ reveals a mystery, not a foregone conclusion
4. That the Virgin is not represented as scared
5. That the robust corporeality of the Saved expresses the meaning of Resurrection
6. That the artist's self-portrait as empty skin signals his anxiety to partake in the Resurrection
7. That there is no gap between Heaven and Hell
8. That Michelangelo disbelieves in material Hell
9. That the tumblers above are no sinners but allegories of Sin
10. That Michelangelo's apocalyptic demography is unorthodox
11. That the unequal sizes of the books do not express a statistical differential
12. That the punishment in Michelangelo's fresco is not to be everlasting
13. Theological excursus showing that Michelangelo's fresco embodies a merciful heresy
14. That the Martyrs' supposed clamor for vengeance, being inaudible may not have been heard aright
15. That the interpretative tradition feeds on itself, with minimal interference form the object interpreted

      I find all of Steinberg's research and arguments to be convincing. Although I cannot help but remember previous readings like “Artistic Theory in the High Renaissance” where Sir Anthony Blunt explains Michelangelo's change of faith later in life. This metamorphosis in Michelangelo's thinking was documented in his writing/poetry and in his later work. The body was no longer so important to Michelangelo, the spirit was his concern and he became very introspective. Michelangelo worried about his soul's resurrection; whether he had lead a Christ-like life that would be worthy of Heaven.

      It is with that previous article, and Steinberg's, that I wonder if Michelangelo's The Last Judgment was a sort of art therapy for the artist? Was it his way of working through the turmoil he felt throughout his long life? I'd like to believe that Michelangelo was intentional in every decision he made in this Fresco, that every lengthy interpretation by Steinberg was exactly what he was thinking and trying to say. Michelangelo was an apt thinker and gifted artist – a genius – but I doubt he would be brave enough to depict a scene worthy of heresy directly in front of the Papacy. He went into hiding once before because he feared murder, I don't believe he would ever have put himself in harms way.

      But perhaps Michelangelo knew that his Last Judgment would go directly over the church's head. ...As you can tell this argument makes me waffle in between agreeing and disagreeing. Maybe the class discussion will put me on one side or the other. 

P.S.  For your enjoyment (and mine because I am a Printmaker) I have linked to the prints/engravings mentioned at the end of Leo Steinberg's “Michelangelo's Last Judgment as Merciful Heresy” which was on page 14 of the article. Steinberg mentions the alterations found in these prints, especially the size differences of Heaven and Hell that the engravers changed from Michelangelo's original fresco. 

• Bonasone, Giulio

• Rota, Martino

• Cartaro, Mario

• Niccolò della Casa

• Etienne Dupérac

• Giovanni Battista de' Cavalieri

Post #4 Research Project: Raphael and Marcantonio Raimondi: Raphael interest in Printmaking and Printmaking Techniques

Raphael and Marcantonio Raimondi: Raphael interest in Printmaking and Printmaking Techniques

 

Marcantonio Raimondi and Raphael Lucretia, Engraving 1510

Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael, Dido, Engraving

School of Raphael, Lucretia-Dido, Pen and brown ink over black chalk

      It is believed that the collaboration between Marcantonio Raimondi and Raphael came about with Marcantonio's Lucretia engraving. This engraving was actually based on a drawing by Raphael, Marcantonio copied it without Raphael's knowledge and it was so skillful that it was presented to Raphael by a third party. Raphael recognized Marcantonio's gift and a collaboration was born. (Pon, 97)

     Lisa Pon argues that Raphael was much more influenced and interested in printmaking than any of his other contemporaries:

                     “Leonardo da Vinci may have been interested in printing presses, but he made no prints. 

                     Michelangelo after the half-century mark, would become quite interested in printed 

                     texts, but he never showed the type of enthusiasm that Raphael did for printed pictures” 

                     (102).

Raphael saw the print as a way to advance his career. Most would not be permitted to see his frescoes in the Papal Apartment, and prints could be widely distributed. “This explanation – print as publicity – has some truth to it: there can be no doubt that Raphael's images spread more widely and quickly in print than they ever could have in the media of painting or drawing alone” (Pon, 102-103). It is hypothesized that Raphael had access to a printing press, and used it in his daily practice, though not as an engraver.

Raphael Study for Receive Ye the Holy Ghost, Counter proof of a drawing in blind stylus and red chalk. 1515

      The technique of “counter-proofing” “involves laying a moistened blank sheet of paper on top of the drawing and applying pressure. The resulting image is reversed, and an explanation given is that Raphael wanted to see the composition in reverse, as it would appear in the final tapestry” (Pon, 111). Counterproofs could be achieved by hand or with a printing press.“The evenness and exactness of Study for Receive Ye the Holy Ghost suggests that it was made using a printing press. Thus it can be seen as a visual document of Raphael's interaction with someone using a printing press around 1515” (Pon, 112). However, other scholars suggest that this technique of counter-proofing was actually used to set the red chalk on the original drawing, much like fixative spray does today.

Raphael, Study for Venus, Metalpoint on pink prepared paper which is cut and adhered to another piece of paper

Marcantonio Raimondi and Raphael, Venus and Cupid in a Niche, (before Raphael's correction, as seen in the stance of the feet) Engraving

Bibliography:

Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print. China: 

     Yale University Press, 2004. Print

Post #3 Research Project: Raphael and Marcantonio Raimondi: the Collaboration, the Signature

Raphael and Marcantonio Raimondi: the Collaboration, the Signature

       “Marcantonio Raimondi's great collaboration with Raphael took place not in Venice, but in Rome around 1510” (Pon, 67). Looking at prints attributed to “Marcantonio Raimondi and Raphael” it is important to note the “and” which indicates collaboration between the two artists, while a print described as “Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael” means not under collaboration, due to the use of the word “after”.

        In the sixteenth century, “signatures on paintings began to signify the authorial painter or sculptor alone, rather than being commercial signs of the author of the workshop as a whole” (Pon, 68). In sixteenth century printmaking, often one will see the signatures of the artist, printmaker, and publisher of the artwork. This plethora of signatures causes confusion in the modern world as to whom the artwork should really be attributed to. Is the print done in collaboration with the artist? Or is the print after the artist?

       Baviero Carocci, or “il Baviera” was an assistant to Raphael in his workshop and would later own Raphael's engraved plates. As Lisa Pon describes, Raphael did not necessarily “sign” all of his engraved plates that are attributed to him: 

         “Raphael's own name did appear on his most important prints, and as the person designated to 

         look after the printing, il Baviera would have been authorized to sign Raphael's name, even if

         he (Raphael) did not sign his own, on the engraved plates for them. In other words, the printed 

        signatures on the plates engraved in Raphael's workshop, Raphael's authorial signature on these 

        prints, may have been signed by the proxy he chose for his legal signature” (73).

The signature in these prints is also quite different than how the contemporary print world handles the artist's signature today. Raphael's signature is actually engraved into the surface of the copper plate, and (most notably) this mark is not by him (he was never trained in engraving). Contemporary printmakers sign the actual print with a pencil, this marks the print as an original and by the artist. This pencil signature on every print, on all editions, came out of the necessity of the art world to define the original. It is harder to reproduce a signature every time in pencil on an edition of 100 prints than it would be to engrave the artist's name into the plate and have the signature look the same every single time. Stated earlier, it is because of this engraved signature into the plate/artwork, and not a “real signature” that there is controversy about what prints are actually under the artist's (like Raphael) real influence.

        Marcantonio Raimondi either had “little to do with Raphael on a professional level” or “worked entirely under Raphael's influence, if not in the painter's studio, then in the print shop set up by Raphael and run by il Baviera” (Pon, 83). There is no existing documentation of either circumstances. Either way, Marcantonio made “some fifty prints from Raphael's designs” (Pon, 83). It should be noted that Marcantonio “in the course of his career made more than one hundred and sixty prints on his own, and another 45 or so after the antique” (Pon, 83).

       “Raphael most surely never worked on the plates for the prints made by Marcantonio, since the painter had no training in cutting into the copper with a burin, a task physically unlike drawing or painting” (Pon, 85). Marcantonio Raimondi and Raphael's engravings “bore inscriptions naming both the painter and the engraver” (Pon, 85). Their collaboration consisted of Marcantonio translating Raphael's drawings into prints. This is somewhat different than other copyists at the time, who were translating finished artwork, like paintings and frescoes, into prints.

       In “Parnassus” the engraving from 1517, many differences can been seen between the print and the original painting. These differences have been explained by interpreting Marcantonio's engraving as a “reconstruction of a lost Raphael drawing” (Pon, 87). Marcantonio's Parnassus has the words “Raphael depicted this in the Vatican” at the bottom of the print which (Pon, 93). Marcantonio Raimondi withholds his M.A.F. or M.A. Signature from Parnassus. The “engraving recalled an early composition [of Raphael's], one devoid of the compromises, that had been dictated by the physical presence of the window and which were therefore unnecessary in the print” (Pon, 94). “As a result the print was not a reproduction of the fresco, but a new outlet for Raphael's creative energies via the process of collaboration in the medium of engraving” (Pon, 94).

Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael, Parnassus, Engraving 1517

Raphael, Parnassus, Fresco. Stanza della Segnatura, Apostolic Palace, Vatican Museums 1511

These differences may not have been as problematic in the 1500's as they are to us now. Completely reproductive prints, after original paintings or photos, that duplicated every single aspect exactly was
not a standard of printmakers working under/with artists until the nineteenth century (Pon, 88).

Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael, Mercury Descending from the Sky, Engraving 1517

Raphael, Mercury Descending from the Sky, Fresco. Loggia of Psyche, Villa Farnesina, Rome

Bibliography:

Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print. China: 

     Yale University Press, 2004. Print

 

The influence of Marcantonio Raimondi on Giorgione and eventually on Manet

Marcantonio Raimondi The Judgment of Paris, 1510–20. Engraving

Giorgione Fête champêtre, 1511. Painting

Édouard Manet The Luncheon on the Grass, 1862-1863. Painting

Discussion 5: Titian's Venus of Urbino

A short informative video from Smart History about Titian's Venus of Urbino 1538

 

My favorite art historian, Sister Wendy, talking about art in Venice with Bellini, Titian and Giorgione

Rona Goffen, Titian's Venus of Urbino 

    Italian artist, Titian, lived from 1488-90 until his death from the plague in 1576. He dominated painting in Venice and eventually Europe from 1518 on (Goffen, 3). Titian painted many subjects throughout his life, but perhaps the most influential on the art world is his painting the Venus of Urbino from 1538.

Titian Venus of Urbino 1538

Titian's painting is based off of Giorgione's Sleeping Venus from 1510. 

 

 Giorgione Sleeping Venus 1510

Titian is actually attributed to painting the landscape and sky in Sleeping Venus. The Venus of Urbino began the art historical tradition of the reclining nude.

 Ingres Grand Odalisque 1814                 

  Manet Olympia 1863                                      

 Amedeo Modigliani Reclining Nude 1917

The Venus of Urbino was novel in its time. Mainly because the nude figure gazes out at the viewer, unabashedly. The historical nude figure in art was accustom to averting his or her gaze so that one could freely stare without any consequences. But Titian denies the viewer this custom and has the Venus meet our stare.

      The main purpose of Rona Goffen's article seems to be of debating the erotic nature of the painting. I agree that taking a 21^st century context of pornographic imagery and ideas of eroticism will not ideally navigate the true history of the piece, but it is hard for me to alter my baseline. The Venus is indeed sensual and is absolutely about the male gaze and misogynistic in nature. Misogyny was rampant in the 1500's and is even prevalent today. However, I do agree that the Venus does not seem unintelligent, in fact, she alludes to that idea that she knows exactly what she is doing or up to. I believe this added notion of intelligence comes from her long gaze into the viewer.

Before, the traditional nude was about the beauty of mankind and that mankind is made in God's image. In Titian's Venus of Urbino that tradition is broken, instead of an unreachable depiction of mankind this depiction invites us, with her stare, into the painting and invites us to gently look upon her.

      I like best what Goffen says about masterpieces in art “the definition of a masterpiece is precisely that is is inexhaustible, always revealing new aspects of itself” (18). This painting can truly keep being interpreted throughout the centuries. Something that can be said is that Titian's Venus of Urbino catapulted us into the age of the reclining nude and it is something that is still explored and still controversial today in art. With the flourish of women artists in the 20^th century, a lot of attention was brought to how women were depicted and represented in art. There is a long history in artwork of women as objects and women as represented for men to look upon (the male gaze), and it is my attitude that despite the Venus of Urbino's intelligent eyes she is still obviously objectified.

Post #2 Research Project: Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print

Marcantonio Raimondi with Albrecht Dürer

      In the Renaissance, many images were transferred or repeated into different mediums: drawings would become paintings and paintings would become tapestries, etc... The idea was that being able to have more than one image of a piece of artwork was highly desirable, and printmaking was the answer to that. Printmaking has an inherent ability to produce thousands of editions. Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving and woodcut publishing business made him a successful artist. Giorgio Vasari's biography of Marcantonio labels him as the central figure in Renaissance printmaking (Pon, 13). Marcantonio's prints were widely collected by the late 1500's and highly valued (Pon, 15).

Marcantonio Raimondi worked in conjunction, or collaboration, with living artists like Baccio Bandinelli when creating prints.

 

Marcantonio and Baccio Bandinelli “ Martyrdom of St. Lawrence” engraving (This piece was executed from Bandinell's drawing... a collaboration)

 Possession and collaboration was an issue in the printmaking world, “the concept of practical collaboration allows us to explore the range of relationships, from cases in which the printmaker knew and worked next to the designer, to ones in which there was no personal interaction at all [in creating the image]” (Pon, 12). Not much information of printmaker Marcantonio Raimondi survives today, not even the exact years of his birth and death (Pon, 10). No such legal documentation of collaboration between Marcantonio and Raphael or Dürer and Marcantonio have survived either (Pon, 12). What has survived is the animosity Albrecht Dürer must have felt toward Marcantonio Raimondi.

      In the early 1500's Albrecht Dürer's prints were widely distributed from his native roots in Germany, especially to Venice, Italy. In his youth Marcantonio traveled to Venice and discovered the beautiful woodcuts of Dürer. He spent almost all of the money he brought with him in order to purchase the twenty print series of Dürer's called “Life of the Virgin”. Albrecht Dürer had a large problem with people copying and redistributing his artwork (especially the Italians) without his consent. One of these offenders was Marcantonio Raimondi when he made engravings “of the Nuremberg artist's Life of the Virgin woodcuts” (Pon, 39). Dürer's Life of the Virgin series of twenty woodcuts was, in a way, copyrighted. The Emperor of Rome, Maximilian, had privileged Dürer “that no one shall dare to print these works in spurious forms, nor sell such prints with the boundaries of the Empire...” (Pon, 39).

Albrecht Dürer, “Glorification of the Virgin” from “Life of the Virgin” series Woodcut

Marcantonio after Albrecht Dürer “Glorification of the Virgin” from “Life of the Virgin” series Engraving

      Marcantonio's copies, or plagiarized versions, of the woodcuts were so skilled that many people thought the engravings were made by Albrecht Dürer. This is partly because Marcantonio did not remove Dürer's AD monogram, or signature, from his own copies. When this situation was discovered by Dürer he “was moved to such a fury that he left Flanders and went to Venice, where he complained about Marcantonio to the Senate. However, he got nothing but the sentence that Marcantonio could no longer add the name or monogram of Albrecht Dürer to his works” (Pon, 41).

Dürer's AD monogram

      Sometimes Marcantonio's engravings still have the AD signature as well as Marcantonio's own monogram. Marcantonio's monogram, or signature is sometimes MA or MAF which stands for Marc'Antonio de' Franci in honor of his teacher Francesco Francia (Pon, 15). Although in other Marcantonio engravings of Dürer's work the AD is completely removed.

        It was surprising to learn such lenient penalties for apparent plagiarism compared to current punishments for stealing and reproducing artwork without consent in the 21^st century. This treatment in the 1500's of artwork is because “these copies were produced in an ambiance that did not always understand pictures as an artist's property ”(Pon, 41). It is much later in the history of art that these issues of copying and plagiarizing are more seriously addressed.

        Next time I will discuss the more cordial relationship of High Renaissance artist Raphael with Marcantonio Raimondi.

Bibliography:

Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print. China: 

     Yale University Press, 2004. Print

P.S. I just wanted to share with you all a quote from the book I am using. As a MFA candidate in Printmaking this bitching from painter Titian made be laugh:

“Titian complained that certain men of little skill in art, in order to avoid hard work and out of greed for money, have adopted this profession [of printmaking], defrauding of honor the original author of said prints by worsening them, stealing the labor of others, in addition to swindling the public with forgeries of little value” (Pon, 48).

Intro to Research Project: Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print

Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondo: Copying and the Renaissance Print

        Printmaking is a medium, that inherently, is mass producible. Artist's use matrices, or plates, such as wood or metal that are inked up and then offset onto paper. This offset can be done by hand or with a press. In the beginning printmaking was a tool to bring images to a wider audience; whether in “illustrating books and pamphlets or as independent images” (Hartt, 36). The invention of the Gutenberg press was soon found in many major Italian cities: Rome in 1467, Venice in 1469, Florence by 1471, and over seventy other cities by the end of the 1400's (Hartt, 36). The widespread use of the press throughout Italy in the Renaissance created many business opportunities for copyists or printmakers.

        Prints, since their creation, have always been more reasonably priced than paintings or sculptures due to their ability to create more than one of the same image. In the fifteenth century prints were “created for the middle and lower classes” (Hartt, 220). Many of these prints were reproductions/copies of other artist's works, not the printmaker's original designs or concepts. Most professional artists of the quarttrocento believed these masters of reproductions to be just artisans (Hartt, 220). The “earliest reproductive print made after a Renaissance painting” is attributed to Giovanni Pietro da Birago with his engraving “Last Supper, after Leonardo da Vinci” 1500 (Hartt, 462).

Giovanni Pietro da Birago “Last Supper, after Leonardo da Vinci” 1500

Leonardo da Vinci "The Last Supper"1495–1498

This print was done soon after the completion of the painting, and because of it art historians can study the original arrangement of the feet (which are now lost) (Hartt. 462). Print reproductions enhance and answer questions of the past, as well as give us insight into the collaboration between printmaker and artist.

        I will be focusing on the Italian printmaker or engraver Marcantonio Raimondi (1480-1534) and his relationships with famous German printmaker Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) and famous High Renaissance Italian painter Raphael (1483-1520). Topics will cover the importance of copyists and their influence on the art of the day, the relationship between designer and printmaker, and the issue of copyright or intellectual property.

 Albrecht Dürer

Marcantonio Raimondi

Raphael
 

Bibliography:

Hartt, Fredrick and David G. Wilkins. The History of Italian Renaissance Art. Upper Saddle River:    

     Pearson Education, 2011. Print.

Lincoln, Evelyn. The Invention of the Italian Renaissance Printmaker. Singapore: Yale University 

     Press, 2000. Print.

Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Renaissance Print. China: 

     Yale University Press, 2004. Print

Discussion 4: Artistic Theory in the High Renaissance

 Artistic Theory in the High Renaissance: Leonardo compared to Michelangelo

Sir Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy (pp. 23-38, 58-81)

         It is acceptable to say that Leonardo and Michelangelo begin as scientists in art, and rely on the sciences in order to formulate their works. Both were raised in the Humanist era and therefore studied the arts and sciences. Foundations in linear perspective and accurate proportion developed a standard for accuracy in art. The exactitude of the portrayal of 'man' came only through much schooling and personal study (dissection). Leonardo and Michelangelo had much of the same upbringing; being apprenticed to great artists and eventually surpassing them significantly in skill and theory. Beyond their similar roots these two great artists of the Renaissance formulate different ideas of what art is, and how it should be depicted and thought of.

         Leonardo judges art by its completeness of rendering nature (Blunt, 27). “For leonardo, painting is a science because of its foundation on mathematical perspective and on the study of nature” (Blunt, 26). Through Leonardo's words one can see how he judges other artist's for not being at the same skill level as himself. Leonardo has

“...a particular scorn for those who ignore theory and think that by mere practice they can produce a work of art: 'Those who devote themselves to practice without science are like sailors who put to sea without rudder or compass and who can never be certain where they are going. Practice must always be founded on sound theory.' He also disapproves of those who rely on devices for exact imitation, like Alberti's net for the method of painting on a piece of glass held in front of the view. These short-cuts should only be used by those who have enough knowledge of theory” (28).

He believes that one can only truly be a true master of realism, of accuracy of nature, with study and underlying understanding of the subject; a true traditional master. This obsession, or thirst, for perfection is apparent due to the numerous amount of notebooks Leonardo filled throughout his lifetime. Leonardo judged his own artwork by the exactness that it imitated real life or nature. He used a mirror to check life-likeness, and “the reflection in a mirror as 'the true painting'” (Blunt, 30). This mirror method is still used by artists today.

         For through all of Leonardo's obsession with understanding how the world worked, he became a genius before his time. “His knowledge of human anatomy was not attained by members of the medical profession for half a century after his death, and many of the facts which he observed had to wait still longer before they could be properly fitted into man's scheme of the universe” (Blunt, 25). Perhaps because of his studies, Leonardo comes to conclusions about what is the greatest art, “Leonardo maintains that painting is the finer art, [not poetry], because 'it makes images of the works of nature with more truth than the poet'” (Blunt, 27). The same idea comes out when Leonardo claims superiority for painting over sculpture because “the latter cannot use color, or aerial perspective, or depict luminous or transparent bodies, clouds, storms, and many other things” (Blunt, 27). It is known that Leonardo and Michelangelo disliked each other. One can only imagine Leonardo says these things against poetry and sculpture so that Michelangelo, who was foremost a sculpture and privately a poet, would hear them or that their social circle or contemporaries would know how Leonardo felt. Leonardo felt that the most beautiful and successful of art was that which could allude the most exactly to real life.

         Contrastingly, Michelangelo, by the end of his life does not believe that art should be the “exact imitation of nature” (Blunt, 61). Michelangelo was not just trained in Humanism, but also Neoplatonism, which “spoke of spiritual beauty” (Blunt, 61). His training in Neoplatonism “led to a belief in the beauty of the visible universe, above all in human beauty” (Blunt, 60). To Michelangelo, beauty (especially in the depiction of man) was a reflection of the divine (Blunt, 62).

Unlike Leonardo, Michelangelo was an extremely devout man. He wrote a poem that said, “nowhere does God, in his grace, reveal himself to me more clearly than in lovely human form, which I love solely because it is a mirrored image of Himself” (Blunt, 69). This explains his attention to the male figures in his artwork, as well as the masculinity of his females, because men are the likeness of God in Michelangelo's eyes. One can see this especially with the Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel fresco (1508-12), which is “a worship of the beauty of the human body” (Blunt, 60).

         Many years later Michelangelo paints “The Last Judgement” in the Sistine Chapel (1536-41) and one can compare this fresco to the ceiling and see that, “physical beauty is not the most important but the portrayal of the soul is what occupies Michelangelo's thoughts” (Blunt, 66). Michelangelo became consumed with getting into heaven, wrought with emotion of whether his soul was good enough to avoid damnation. His thoughts became that “love of physical beauty is a cheat, but the true love, that of spiritual beauty, gives perfect satisfaction, does not fade with time, and elevates the mind to the contemplation of the divine” (Blunt, 67).

         Michelangelo's artistic theory concludes that physical portrayal of beauty is not as important to the portrayal of spiritual beauty. This might be why many of his sculptures, like those in the Medici Tombs, have unfinished faces. This unfinished quality might have meant something to Michelangelo and his relationship with God that onlookers won't ever comprehend. Leonardo also had many unfinished artworks in his lifetime, but these were probably not intentional. His artistic theory was that art should imitate life's beauty exactly; which can only be accomplished by a thorough study of the sciences and only truly through painting. Leonardo said to “never imitate another painter, or you will be their 'grandson' and and not a son of nature in your art” (Blunt, 33). This is because this copying leads to Mannerism. Leonardo disapproved of Mannerism because “it was away from the real nature of things” (Blunt, 33). It is because of Michelangelo and his theories and depictions in art, not Leonardo's, that the Renaissance leads into Mannerism. Despite their similar roots, these two artists arrived at very different opinions on what art should be.

…This begins the debate of which great Master had a more profound influence on the art world then and now?

Prints & Pots + Bling

The Facebook event page is here: https://www.facebook.com/events/545516115503866/

Please tell your friends! It's the best event of the semester ;)

If you have questions you can leave them in the comments.