Vasari: Art Criticism, Part 1
Obviously, as both an artist and an art historian, Vasari had some opinions to offer on art.
First, Vasari's view of medieval art:Vol. I, p. 73, Niccola and Giovanni: [I]n the year 1240 ... certain Tuscan masters ... made the vaulting of the choir-niche, which, although in those times it was held as something difficult and of great cost, moves us to-day rather to laughter and to compassion than to marvel ... [They] give us to know no less the poverty of their talents than the unmeasured riches wasted by the men of those times, by reason of their having had no masters who might execute in a good manner any work that they might do.
I wonder what he would have thought about the Pre-Raphaelites...?
I've read in various places that Vasari was supposedly the first art critic to refer disparagingly to medieval architecture as "Gothic" (i.e., "barbaric"). Maybe I overlooked some, but I was only able to find one such reference in my translation:Vol. II, p. 473, Benvenuto Garofalo and others: There, likewise, was drawn the ancient portico of the Church of S. Lorenzo in the same city, built by the Romans, which is a great work, beautiful and well worthy of note; but the temple there, or rather, the church, is in the manner of the Goths.
I did, however, find plenty of disparaging references to medieval churches being built in "the German style". Perhaps the translator simply chose to translate the word "Gothic" as "German"? Seems unlikely to me, especially since we know from his treatment of Albrecht Dürer that Vasari specifically disliked German (and Flemish) art. Maybe Vasari was the first to use "Gothic" as a slur against medieval art, but I imagine someone else popularized it.
Now two quotes on judging art by its content. First, notwithstanding Vasari's condemnation of pornography, he's not a puritan; depictions of the nude have a place in legitimate art for him. In fact, here's his stand against puritans:Vol. I, p. 409, Fra Giovanni da Fiesole: Now I would not have any man deceive himself by considering the rude and inept [artworks] as holy, and the beautiful and excellent as licentious; as some do, who, seeing figures of women or of youths adorned with loveliness and beauty beyond the ordinary, straightway censure them and judge them licentious ... What would such men do if they found themselves, or rather, what are we to believe that they do when they actually find themselves, in places containing living beauty, accompanied by licentious ways, honey-sweet words, movements full of grace, and eyes that ravish all but the stoutest of hearts, if the very image of beauty, nay, its mere shadow, moves them so profoundly?
In other words, Mr. Congressman, if you hear lasciviousness in the lyrics of "Louie, Louie", that tells us more about your "filthy mind" than the recording artist's.
And here's an interesting one where Vasari shows that he values good art over correct dogma, at least when it comes to obscure or arcane points of doctrine.Vol. I, p. 537, Sandro Botticelli: [H]e painted a panel with an infinite number of figures - namely, the Assumption of Our Lady, with the zones of Heaven as they are represented, and the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Doctors, the Virgins, and the Hierarchies; all from the design given to him by Matteo [Palmieri], who was a learned and able man. ... But for all that the work is most beautiful, and should have silenced envy, nevertheless there were certain malignant slanderers who, not being able to do it any other damage, said that both Matteo and Sandro had committed therein the grievous sin of heresy. As to whether this be true or false, I cannot be expected to judge; it is enough that the figures painted therein by Sandro are truly worthy of praise...
And now two quotes with contradictory advice. First:Vol. I, p. 803, Lorenzo di Credi: [Lorenzo] was always purifying and distilling his nut-oils, and he made mixtures of colours on his palette in such numbers, that from the first of the light tints to the last of the darks there was a gradual succession involving an over-careful and truly excessive elaboration, so that at times he had twenty-five or thirty of them on his palette. ... Such excessive care is perhaps no more worthy of praise than the other extreme of negligence, for in all things one should observe a certain mean and avoid extremes, which are generally harmful.
OK, so don't go overboard in transitioning from one color to another.Vol. I, p. 901, Il Rosso: [F]or with regard to the blending of colour it would be impossible to excel it, seeing that the lights which are in the brightest parts unite with the lower lights little by little as they merge into the darks, with such sweetness and harmony, and with such masterly skill in the projection of the shadows, that the figures stand out from one another and bring each other into relief by means of the lights and shades. Such vigour, indeed, has this work, that it may be said to have been conceived and executed with more judgment and mastery than any that has ever been painted by any other master ...
Wait, so... really fine control of shading from one color to another is a good thing?
Oh well. I guess we'd have to see the pictures in question.
Incidentally, here's a bonus quote about Il Rosso. I can't tell if it's a compliment or a criticism:Ibid.: He was so rich in invention, that he never had any space left over in his pictures...
Finally, two quotes on the pros and cons of using assistants to help you with your artwork.Vol. II, p. 128, Giulio Romano: These stories ... were painted from the great cartoons of Giulio by Benedetto of Pescia and Rinaldo Mantovano ... although it is true that the work was afterwards retouched almost all over by Giulio, so that it is very much as if it had been all painted by him. This method, which he learned from Raffaello, his instructor, is very useful to young men, who in this way obtain practice and thereby generally become excellent masters.
Vasari used assistants himself, but (I gather) only a few at a time. He's very consistent in decrying the practice of rockstar artists delegating their commissions to vast hordes of assistants.Vol. II, p. 182, Perino del Vaga: And although this method pleases Princes, giving them their works quickly, and perhaps benefits the craftsmen who labour upon them, yet, if they were the ablest men in the world, they could never feel that love for the works of others which a man feels for his own. Nor, however well drawn the cartoons may be, can they be imitated as exactly and as thoroughly as by the hand of their author ... He, then, who thirsts for honour, should do his own painting. This I can say from experience ... Whoever, therefore, wishes to ensure long life for his name and his works, should undertake fewer and do them all with his own hand, if he desires to obtain that full meed of honour that a man of exalted genius seeks to acquire.
First, Vasari's view of medieval art:Vol. I, p. 73, Niccola and Giovanni: [I]n the year 1240 ... certain Tuscan masters ... made the vaulting of the choir-niche, which, although in those times it was held as something difficult and of great cost, moves us to-day rather to laughter and to compassion than to marvel ... [They] give us to know no less the poverty of their talents than the unmeasured riches wasted by the men of those times, by reason of their having had no masters who might execute in a good manner any work that they might do.
I wonder what he would have thought about the Pre-Raphaelites...?
I've read in various places that Vasari was supposedly the first art critic to refer disparagingly to medieval architecture as "Gothic" (i.e., "barbaric"). Maybe I overlooked some, but I was only able to find one such reference in my translation:Vol. II, p. 473, Benvenuto Garofalo and others: There, likewise, was drawn the ancient portico of the Church of S. Lorenzo in the same city, built by the Romans, which is a great work, beautiful and well worthy of note; but the temple there, or rather, the church, is in the manner of the Goths.
I did, however, find plenty of disparaging references to medieval churches being built in "the German style". Perhaps the translator simply chose to translate the word "Gothic" as "German"? Seems unlikely to me, especially since we know from his treatment of Albrecht Dürer that Vasari specifically disliked German (and Flemish) art. Maybe Vasari was the first to use "Gothic" as a slur against medieval art, but I imagine someone else popularized it.
Now two quotes on judging art by its content. First, notwithstanding Vasari's condemnation of pornography, he's not a puritan; depictions of the nude have a place in legitimate art for him. In fact, here's his stand against puritans:Vol. I, p. 409, Fra Giovanni da Fiesole: Now I would not have any man deceive himself by considering the rude and inept [artworks] as holy, and the beautiful and excellent as licentious; as some do, who, seeing figures of women or of youths adorned with loveliness and beauty beyond the ordinary, straightway censure them and judge them licentious ... What would such men do if they found themselves, or rather, what are we to believe that they do when they actually find themselves, in places containing living beauty, accompanied by licentious ways, honey-sweet words, movements full of grace, and eyes that ravish all but the stoutest of hearts, if the very image of beauty, nay, its mere shadow, moves them so profoundly?
In other words, Mr. Congressman, if you hear lasciviousness in the lyrics of "Louie, Louie", that tells us more about your "filthy mind" than the recording artist's.
And here's an interesting one where Vasari shows that he values good art over correct dogma, at least when it comes to obscure or arcane points of doctrine.Vol. I, p. 537, Sandro Botticelli: [H]e painted a panel with an infinite number of figures - namely, the Assumption of Our Lady, with the zones of Heaven as they are represented, and the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Doctors, the Virgins, and the Hierarchies; all from the design given to him by Matteo [Palmieri], who was a learned and able man. ... But for all that the work is most beautiful, and should have silenced envy, nevertheless there were certain malignant slanderers who, not being able to do it any other damage, said that both Matteo and Sandro had committed therein the grievous sin of heresy. As to whether this be true or false, I cannot be expected to judge; it is enough that the figures painted therein by Sandro are truly worthy of praise...
And now two quotes with contradictory advice. First:Vol. I, p. 803, Lorenzo di Credi: [Lorenzo] was always purifying and distilling his nut-oils, and he made mixtures of colours on his palette in such numbers, that from the first of the light tints to the last of the darks there was a gradual succession involving an over-careful and truly excessive elaboration, so that at times he had twenty-five or thirty of them on his palette. ... Such excessive care is perhaps no more worthy of praise than the other extreme of negligence, for in all things one should observe a certain mean and avoid extremes, which are generally harmful.
OK, so don't go overboard in transitioning from one color to another.Vol. I, p. 901, Il Rosso: [F]or with regard to the blending of colour it would be impossible to excel it, seeing that the lights which are in the brightest parts unite with the lower lights little by little as they merge into the darks, with such sweetness and harmony, and with such masterly skill in the projection of the shadows, that the figures stand out from one another and bring each other into relief by means of the lights and shades. Such vigour, indeed, has this work, that it may be said to have been conceived and executed with more judgment and mastery than any that has ever been painted by any other master ...
Wait, so... really fine control of shading from one color to another is a good thing?
Oh well. I guess we'd have to see the pictures in question.
Incidentally, here's a bonus quote about Il Rosso. I can't tell if it's a compliment or a criticism:Ibid.: He was so rich in invention, that he never had any space left over in his pictures...
Finally, two quotes on the pros and cons of using assistants to help you with your artwork.Vol. II, p. 128, Giulio Romano: These stories ... were painted from the great cartoons of Giulio by Benedetto of Pescia and Rinaldo Mantovano ... although it is true that the work was afterwards retouched almost all over by Giulio, so that it is very much as if it had been all painted by him. This method, which he learned from Raffaello, his instructor, is very useful to young men, who in this way obtain practice and thereby generally become excellent masters.
Vasari used assistants himself, but (I gather) only a few at a time. He's very consistent in decrying the practice of rockstar artists delegating their commissions to vast hordes of assistants.Vol. II, p. 182, Perino del Vaga: And although this method pleases Princes, giving them their works quickly, and perhaps benefits the craftsmen who labour upon them, yet, if they were the ablest men in the world, they could never feel that love for the works of others which a man feels for his own. Nor, however well drawn the cartoons may be, can they be imitated as exactly and as thoroughly as by the hand of their author ... He, then, who thirsts for honour, should do his own painting. This I can say from experience ... Whoever, therefore, wishes to ensure long life for his name and his works, should undertake fewer and do them all with his own hand, if he desires to obtain that full meed of honour that a man of exalted genius seeks to acquire.