Vasari: Art Criticism, Part 2
Nine more quotes from Vasari judging artworks and artists.
Incidentally, T minus 3 entries after this one till I finish my Vasari series. (And you thought it would be never-ending.)
Here's one where I think Vasari is not in step with modern art historians: he's valuing beauty over "authenticity" when it comes to ancient sculptures. In other words, he'd rather see the heads, hands, etc., be supplied by modern sculptors.Vol. I, p. 805, Lorenzetto and Boccaccino: And, in truth, antiquities restored in this way have more grace than those mutilated trunks, members without heads, or figures in any other way maimed and defective.
Although I usually try to be a stickler for authenticity, I find it hard to disagree with Vasari on this point. After all, seeing random fragments of a statue is not really the "authentic" experience that the original viewers of the artwork had.
Moving on, here's a pitfall for artists to avoid -- paucity of reference material:Vol. I, p. 836, Andrea del Sarto: Below them are two figures kneeling, one a Magdalene with most beautiful draperies, whose countenance is a portrait of Andrea’s wife; for in no place did he paint a woman’s features without copying them from her, and if perchance it happened at times that he took them from other women, yet, from his being used to see her continually, and from the circumstances that he had drawn her so often, and, what is more, had her impressed on his mind, it came about that almost all the heads of women that he made resembled her.
This one's interesting to me because it's pretty much the only reference Vasari makes in his book to the art of writing.Vol. I, p. 869, Alfonso Lombardi of Ferrara et al.: [I]t is a fact that in the other arts as well, but above all in that of writing, lack of spontaneity is only too easily recognized, and also, so to speak, over-elaboration in everything.
I wonder to what extent he considered himself a writer. Obviously he considered himself a painter first and foremost, and an architect after that; but you can't spend 20 years writing a 2000-page work without considering yourself a writer in some measure. And, ironically, it's as a writer (or historian, rather) that he's best remembered in our times.
One more thing: having read Vasari's prose, I have to wonder what he considers to be overly elaborate writing...
Here are two quotes in which Vasari (and Michelangelo) disapprove of unorthodox methods.Vol. II, p. 89, Marc' Antonio Bolognese and others: Now since, as I have said, he [Ugo da Carpi] was a painter, I must not omit to tell that he painted in oils, without using a brush, but with his fingers, and partly, also, with other bizarre instruments of his own, an altar-piece which is on the altar of the Volto Santo in Rome. Upon this altar-piece, being one morning with Michelangelo at that altar to hear Mass, I saw an inscription saying that Ugo da Carpi had painted it without a brush; and I laughed and showed the inscription to Michelangelo, who answered, also with a laugh, that it would have been better if he had used a brush, for then he might have done it in a better manner.
Vol. II, pp. 425 - 6, Giovanni Antonio Bazzi (il Sodoma): ... I have heard as a fact that Giovanni Antonio had sunk to such a pitch in his negligence and slothfulness, that he would make neither designs nor cartoons when he had any work of that kind to execute, but would attack the work by designing it with the brush directly on the plaster, which was a strange thing; in which method it is evident that this scene was executed by him.
Here are two about Titian, who sounds like a proto-Impressionist. Like with Dürer, Vasari seems to be torn when it comes to judging Titian: he can't approve of his methods, yet he can't deny his achievements. (Once again, Vasari implicitly appeals to Michelangelo to back him up. And also refers to himself in the third person.)Vol. II, p. 791, Tiziano da Cadore: Michelangelo and Vasari, going one day to visit Tiziano in the Belvedere, saw in a picture that he had executed at that time a nude woman representing Danae, who had in her lap Jove transformed into a rain of gold; and they praised it much, as one does in the painter's presence. After they had left him, discoursing of Tiziano's method, Buonarroti commended it not a little, saying that his colouring and his manner much pleased him, but that it was a pity that in Venice men did not learn to draw well from the beginning, and that those painters did not pursue a better method in their studies. "For," he said, "if this man had been in any way assisted by art and design, as he is by nature, and above all in counterfeiting the life, no one could do more or work better, for he has a fine spirit and a very beautiful and lively manner."
(By the way, did you like the bit about "they praised it much, as one does in the painter's presence"?)Vol. II, p. 794, Tiziano da Cadore: It is true, however, that the method of work which he employed in these last pictures is no little different from the method of his youth, for the reason that the reason that the early works are executed with a certain delicacy and a diligence that are incredible, and they can be seen both from near and from a distance, and these last works are executed with bold strokes and dashed off with a broad and even coarse sweep of the brush, insomuch that from near little can be seen, but from a distance they appear perfect. This method has been the reason that many, wishing to imitate him therein and to play the practised master, have painted clumsy pictures; and this happens because, although many believe that they are done without effort, in truth it is not so, and they deceive themselves, for it is known that they are painted over and over again, and that he returned to them with his colours so many times, that the labour may be perceived. And this method, so used, is judicious, beautiful, and astonishing, because it makes pictures appear alive and painted with great art, but conceals the labour.
A friend of mine has always said "You have to know the rules before you can break them," and that the first modern artists, who had been trained in traditional formal methods but broke with them (e.g. Picasso), achieved more than those who came after them and knew only their works and not the Western canon that came before. I don't entirely agree with this line of reasoning, but I do think it has a kernel of truth.
Two quotes of praise. First, some nice details in this one:Vol. I, p. 939, Francesco Mazzuoli: The Madonna has a most beautiful expression, and the Child is also very natural; for he always gave to the faces of children a vivacious and truly childlike air, which yet reveals that subtle and mischievous spirit that children often have. And he attired the Madonna in a very unusual fashion, clothing her in a garment that had sleeves of yellowish gauze, striped as it were, with gold, which gave a truly beautiful and graceful effect, revealing the flesh in a natural and delicate manner ...
It is kind of funny how Mary has this uniform of a blue robe with red blouse. Probably a holdover from the more rigid conventions of iconography. Mazzuoli's wardrobe choice must have been rather striking for the day.
Also, it does seem like few artists back then could convincingly paint babies or toddlers. And yet they had to, because of the "10,000 baby Jesuses" (to use darklordmoeser's phrase) the Church wanted them to paint back then. The result seems too often to have been odd-looking miniature adults. So if Mazzuoli really did paint children's faces well, he had a rare talent for his age.
And now some praise for a sculptor: Vol. II, p. 807, Jacopo Sansovino: [Of a statue of S. James at the Office of Works of S. Maria del Fiore:] Thus, Sansovino showed in what way undercut draperies should be executed, having made these so delicate and so natural, that in some places he reduced the marble to the thickness that is seen in real folds and in the edges and hems of the borders of draperies; a difficult method, and one demanding much time and patience if you wish that it should so succeed as to display the perfection of art.
Incidentally, T minus 3 entries after this one till I finish my Vasari series. (And you thought it would be never-ending.)
Here's one where I think Vasari is not in step with modern art historians: he's valuing beauty over "authenticity" when it comes to ancient sculptures. In other words, he'd rather see the heads, hands, etc., be supplied by modern sculptors.Vol. I, p. 805, Lorenzetto and Boccaccino: And, in truth, antiquities restored in this way have more grace than those mutilated trunks, members without heads, or figures in any other way maimed and defective.
Although I usually try to be a stickler for authenticity, I find it hard to disagree with Vasari on this point. After all, seeing random fragments of a statue is not really the "authentic" experience that the original viewers of the artwork had.
Moving on, here's a pitfall for artists to avoid -- paucity of reference material:Vol. I, p. 836, Andrea del Sarto: Below them are two figures kneeling, one a Magdalene with most beautiful draperies, whose countenance is a portrait of Andrea’s wife; for in no place did he paint a woman’s features without copying them from her, and if perchance it happened at times that he took them from other women, yet, from his being used to see her continually, and from the circumstances that he had drawn her so often, and, what is more, had her impressed on his mind, it came about that almost all the heads of women that he made resembled her.
This one's interesting to me because it's pretty much the only reference Vasari makes in his book to the art of writing.Vol. I, p. 869, Alfonso Lombardi of Ferrara et al.: [I]t is a fact that in the other arts as well, but above all in that of writing, lack of spontaneity is only too easily recognized, and also, so to speak, over-elaboration in everything.
I wonder to what extent he considered himself a writer. Obviously he considered himself a painter first and foremost, and an architect after that; but you can't spend 20 years writing a 2000-page work without considering yourself a writer in some measure. And, ironically, it's as a writer (or historian, rather) that he's best remembered in our times.
One more thing: having read Vasari's prose, I have to wonder what he considers to be overly elaborate writing...
Here are two quotes in which Vasari (and Michelangelo) disapprove of unorthodox methods.Vol. II, p. 89, Marc' Antonio Bolognese and others: Now since, as I have said, he [Ugo da Carpi] was a painter, I must not omit to tell that he painted in oils, without using a brush, but with his fingers, and partly, also, with other bizarre instruments of his own, an altar-piece which is on the altar of the Volto Santo in Rome. Upon this altar-piece, being one morning with Michelangelo at that altar to hear Mass, I saw an inscription saying that Ugo da Carpi had painted it without a brush; and I laughed and showed the inscription to Michelangelo, who answered, also with a laugh, that it would have been better if he had used a brush, for then he might have done it in a better manner.
Vol. II, pp. 425 - 6, Giovanni Antonio Bazzi (il Sodoma): ... I have heard as a fact that Giovanni Antonio had sunk to such a pitch in his negligence and slothfulness, that he would make neither designs nor cartoons when he had any work of that kind to execute, but would attack the work by designing it with the brush directly on the plaster, which was a strange thing; in which method it is evident that this scene was executed by him.
Here are two about Titian, who sounds like a proto-Impressionist. Like with Dürer, Vasari seems to be torn when it comes to judging Titian: he can't approve of his methods, yet he can't deny his achievements. (Once again, Vasari implicitly appeals to Michelangelo to back him up. And also refers to himself in the third person.)Vol. II, p. 791, Tiziano da Cadore: Michelangelo and Vasari, going one day to visit Tiziano in the Belvedere, saw in a picture that he had executed at that time a nude woman representing Danae, who had in her lap Jove transformed into a rain of gold; and they praised it much, as one does in the painter's presence. After they had left him, discoursing of Tiziano's method, Buonarroti commended it not a little, saying that his colouring and his manner much pleased him, but that it was a pity that in Venice men did not learn to draw well from the beginning, and that those painters did not pursue a better method in their studies. "For," he said, "if this man had been in any way assisted by art and design, as he is by nature, and above all in counterfeiting the life, no one could do more or work better, for he has a fine spirit and a very beautiful and lively manner."
(By the way, did you like the bit about "they praised it much, as one does in the painter's presence"?)Vol. II, p. 794, Tiziano da Cadore: It is true, however, that the method of work which he employed in these last pictures is no little different from the method of his youth, for the reason that the reason that the early works are executed with a certain delicacy and a diligence that are incredible, and they can be seen both from near and from a distance, and these last works are executed with bold strokes and dashed off with a broad and even coarse sweep of the brush, insomuch that from near little can be seen, but from a distance they appear perfect. This method has been the reason that many, wishing to imitate him therein and to play the practised master, have painted clumsy pictures; and this happens because, although many believe that they are done without effort, in truth it is not so, and they deceive themselves, for it is known that they are painted over and over again, and that he returned to them with his colours so many times, that the labour may be perceived. And this method, so used, is judicious, beautiful, and astonishing, because it makes pictures appear alive and painted with great art, but conceals the labour.
A friend of mine has always said "You have to know the rules before you can break them," and that the first modern artists, who had been trained in traditional formal methods but broke with them (e.g. Picasso), achieved more than those who came after them and knew only their works and not the Western canon that came before. I don't entirely agree with this line of reasoning, but I do think it has a kernel of truth.
Two quotes of praise. First, some nice details in this one:Vol. I, p. 939, Francesco Mazzuoli: The Madonna has a most beautiful expression, and the Child is also very natural; for he always gave to the faces of children a vivacious and truly childlike air, which yet reveals that subtle and mischievous spirit that children often have. And he attired the Madonna in a very unusual fashion, clothing her in a garment that had sleeves of yellowish gauze, striped as it were, with gold, which gave a truly beautiful and graceful effect, revealing the flesh in a natural and delicate manner ...
It is kind of funny how Mary has this uniform of a blue robe with red blouse. Probably a holdover from the more rigid conventions of iconography. Mazzuoli's wardrobe choice must have been rather striking for the day.
.jpg){kind=link}
Also, it does seem like few artists back then could convincingly paint babies or toddlers. And yet they had to, because of the "10,000 baby Jesuses" (to use darklordmoeser's phrase) the Church wanted them to paint back then. The result seems too often to have been odd-looking miniature adults. So if Mazzuoli really did paint children's faces well, he had a rare talent for his age.
And now some praise for a sculptor: Vol. II, p. 807, Jacopo Sansovino: [Of a statue of S. James at the Office of Works of S. Maria del Fiore:] Thus, Sansovino showed in what way undercut draperies should be executed, having made these so delicate and so natural, that in some places he reduced the marble to the thickness that is seen in real folds and in the edges and hems of the borders of draperies; a difficult method, and one demanding much time and patience if you wish that it should so succeed as to display the perfection of art.