Art 384 Book Report, Allan Andrews, Winter 2012

Subject of Book Report: Anthony Blunt, “Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450 – 1600,” Oxford University Press, Ely House, London, 1940.

This work was designed to focus on the 1600s and the later developments in artistic theory emerging from the Italian Renaissance. In his preface, the author states that he does not plan to describe the origins of these aesthetic ideas in the art theory of the Middle Ages, or even discuss aesthetic developments in the early stages of Renaissance Art.

He begins with Alberti and Leonardo, gives a short discussion of Colonna, Filarete, and Savanorola and then proceeds to discuss the rising social positions of the artist. This is a preface to his discussion of Michelangelo, who he seems to view as a major source of aesthetic thought leading to Mannerism. A short chapter presents material on Dolce, Paolo Pino, and Michelangelo Biondo, before a longer discussion of Vasari. He ends the book with a discussion of the Council of Trent and late developments in art theory associated with Mannerism.

His discussion of Alberti includes some mention of names like Brunelleschi and the disappearance of Gothic Art asFlorence develops in the direction of Humanism. He reminds us howMedieval works were focused on theology. His discussion of Leonardo reminds us that this is the only painter that has left us much from this period, even if it is in the form of a mass of notes. He describes the detailed scientific observations that Leonardo made and how they turned him in an empirical direction. His next subject is the Gothic romance of Colonna and its discussion of fantastic architecture. In contrast, Filarete is described as “almost Pythagorean” (p. 44). Savanarola seems to bring aMedieval notion of beauty, along with a deep fear of the effects of this new worldly art.

This summary of the development of artistic theory in from 1450 to 1500 is interrupted by a chapter on social factors. These developments in social factors seem to lead to the replacement of the Guilds with academies controlling artistic education. Michelangelo is presented as the crucial source for information on changes in theory that will tend to favor imagination over nature (p. 62). Dolce sees Raphael and Titian as the greatest painters and criticizes the foreshortening of the Mannerists (p. 84). Paolo Pino sees Michelangelo and Titian and the greatest artists (p. 85). After taking as to this point in the development of artistic theory, Blunt discusses the problems resulting from the invasion of Rome in 1527 and the expulsion and return of the Medici. Around 1545, the Papacy enters the Counter-Reformation and turns away from Florence. Florence develops a “court art” that is neither overly rational or overtly emotional. Blunt seems to suggest that Vasari is the best representative of this new development (p 87). If Vasari is the representative of “court art,” Blunt finds a representative for religious art in the theory of “decorum” (p. 123) and the directives of Borromeo (p. 127). Zuccaro and Lomazzo belong to the “Later Mannerists” and advocate an academic and “eclectic” approach to art (p. 138).

Blunts handling of this developments has significant problems. Granted that the origins of Alberti and Leonardo’s theory might be difficult to explain, still, it seems strange to read chapters that are basically summaries of Alberti, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Vasari and then suddenly have to deal with complex relationships between schools of thought that develop from them. But Blunt is good at presenting the flavor of each: Alberti, the rationalist, Leonardo, the empiricist, Michelangelo, the poet, Vasari, the aristocratic historian.

His discussion of the social status of the artist explains trends in art theory that remain present up to the current time. The lower classes did mechanical work but the high born could obtain an education and use their minds, thus the rational art, the experimental art, the poetic art generated by Alberti and Leonardo and Michelangelo, the aristocratic court art of Vasari, its grace, its good taste, belonged properly to high born. Just as Castiglione will give instructions that should be followed by the courtier (Blunt, p. 97), so the latter Mannerists will give detailed instructions for every aspect of artistic effort. But, this in the end appears to be more of a return to the notion of “authority” so important in the Middle Ages (p. 150).

The rationalism of Alberti and the empiricism of Leonardo are not wanted, only artistic methods and rules derived from their works. Finally, Lomazzo’s “Eclecticism” will look to seven authorities in painting: Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, Gaudenzio Ferrari, Polidoroda Caravaggio, and Mantegna (p. 156). A weakness in Blunt is his rigorous failure to discuss transitions, for the work of the art academy in Bologna seems to belong to the transition to the Baroque Era. But, the reader is left to fill in the blanks. When Alberti wrote his works on art theory, manuscripts had been copied by hand and only the best and most important writing was systematically copied. With the spread and popularization of printing, minor writings could be easily copied and distributed. How to books could be compiled for texts at local academies and schools. What once was learned through years of apprenticeship to a major painter at a major center of artistic production, like Florence or Rome, could now be studied and copied by some lesser student in some local area. Furthermore, such behavior could be encouraged because apprenticeship and mechanical studies were for lesser and lower class persons. The child of the wealthy could study his, or her, art student version of Castiglione’s book for the Courtier. His, or her, guide can be Vasari’s notion of “grace” as the key element in good painting (p. 97). RaffaelloBorghini will carry on Vasari’s tradition, and show the would be aristocrat how to “judge” a painting (p. 101). Blunt points out that the Mannerists that came after Borghini sometimes wrote of a single true style, a single correct manner. This is the “la bellamaniera” (p. 155). But, what Blunt does not adequately explain is how the examples he wants to point to, Armenini, Lomazzo, are anything but side shows in the developments that will lead to the Baroque, not major players like Alberti, Leonardo, and Michelangelo. Armenini and Lomazzo do not seem to be in the main track of artistic development.

Blunt wants to emphasize their importance in bringing a return to naturalism, even if highly academic, from the extremes of Mannerism. But, the problem is that Italy, as Blunt clearly explains, is now a side channel in the flow of artistic invention. This is a product of many forces. One source is the Council of Trent and its discouragement of experiment in religious art. Another source is books and academies like those discussed above that emphasize a cook book and courtier’s guide approach to art. Another source is the slavish imitation of the great works of Leonardo, Raphael, etc.

In the chapter on the Council of Trent, Blunt describes several different forms of this evolving Mannerism. Michelangelo becomes the authority for a “tragic mystical” Mannerism. Vasari is the authority for an “aristocratic” form. Religious Mannerism will be transformed by the changing nature of the Papacy (pp. 103 - 104). Apparently, the eclectic, academic versions of Mannerism will develop under the influence of all these forces and attempt to select the best from each. Blunt tells us that Florence and Venice are failing as major forces in art and commerce. Italy and the Papacy are forced to ally themselves with Spain (where great wealth will begin to flow in from the new world). Major forces in this alliance are the Inquisition and the Jesuits (p. 105). This means that the Church begins to control art in new ways. This seems to imply rule books on just what can be done and what cannot be done in a religious setting. However, the Jesuits appear to have favored an “emotional” form of painting seen in the works supported by Pius IV, such as the decorations of Barocci (p. 135). But this is a long way from the rationalism of Alberti. The sad truth is that the main force has moved elsewhere and the sentimentalism and eclecticism and academic activity that dominants Italy at this point will either remain in sterile side pools or be swept up in what will later be termed “Early Baroque.”

Blunt does not focus on how the great art of Florence did not come out of academies, that artists were capable of copying other artists, but the greatest art was the result of rivalry and competition between workers who had access to hands on projects and could experiment with actual situations.

Alberti was not typical of these artists. He was born into an aristocratic family and his background was in Latin and mathematics. He spent much time measuring ancient Roman works and developed his architectural plans from the measurements and geometry he derived from these studies .

So when Blunt begins his book with adiscussion of Alberti, he has already shown his prejudice in respect to that war of social class investigated in his Chapter IV (The Social Postion of the Artist, Blunt, p. 48).In this chapter, he mentions the social position held by Ghiberti and Brunelleschi and their importance in the Public Works of Florence. He points out the Leonardo is the first to defend the artist as an exponent of the liberal arts. The problem is that Leonardo contrasts the painter with the sculptor, favoring painting as less dirty and manual (Blunt, p. 54). So the artist is now admitted to the refined and noble academies of the humanists as long as he is not too dirty and mechanical, or can write refined poetry like Michelangelo (see Blunt, pp. 59 -81).

But the best artistic theory and practice of Florence came from the dirty money that the Medici were accumulating to pay for the dirty work in forge and quarry that generated the pretty items that adorned their palaces. The refined theories that Blunt ends his book emphasizing are worthless list making and formula making that will kill the processes that generated the art and beauty that are being discussed. This seems unimportant to Blunt. He is remarkably unconcerned. It seems unimportant to him that the eclectics and their academies generate sterile places that make little that is original or innovative. It is enough that they stimulated some return to naturalism. This seems to justify their place in the history of aesthetics. In his exposition he seems remarkably sympathetic to Vasari and his notion of artistic “grace.”

In the end, this work is not successful in showing the relationship of art theory in Italy from 1450 to 1600 with the development of art theory in other times and places, but then Blunt never attempted to do this. It is not successful in giving a full account of art theory in respect to its lower class origins. It is quite successful in giving a feeling for the kinds of influences that were shaping art theory at the end of the 1600, particularly theory as seen by the upper classes and those with an academic turn of mind. So this is a book for someone who is already familiar with the basic issues in Italian Art and wants an alternative opinion on the Latter Mannerists. It was not written for a beginning reader without any notion of what Latter Mannerism might be, or for someone who wishes to focus on the social issues.