Progression of Ar,s,c Styles: Comparing Renaissance and Baroque

Transcription

1 Progression of Ar,s,c Styles: Comparing Renaissance and Baroque

2 In his study Principles of Art History, Heinrich Wölfflin distinguishes between Renaissance and Baroque style. While acknowledging many national stylistic tendencies which complicate any simple approach to the question of a transition from Renaissance to Baroque style (for instance, he notes the contrast between the more restless surfaces of Flemish art compared to the relative stability and calm of Dutch art), he also believes that it is possible to discern general principles behind the development of style. He proposes five contrasts to help describe the differences between the two styles in question. These contrasts, or oppositions, each relate to some important general characteristics of how art works are organized. In each case, the first term of the contrast is associated with Renaissance style, the second with the Baroque. The contrasts are:

3 1. Linear vs. Painterly Renaissance art tends to define forms with clear contours. Even given that the development of chiaroscuro (light/dark contrasts) is a Renaissance phenomenon, the use of light and dark in a Renaissance image generally does not interfere with the viewer s clear understanding of the boundaries of an object. As an example, Wölfflin suggests Dürer s St. Jerome in His Study. Even though the artist has made great use of lights and darks, the emphasis is still on the integrity of each form (object) in the object and its distinctness. On the other hand, Baroque art, being more painterly, defines masses rather than forms, and the Baroque artist is not concerned with making sure that we know exactly where forms begin and end in space. Rembrandt s etching of St. Jerome helps to make the point: forms seem to dissolve in light. The Baroque artist does not hesitate to create patterns of light and dark which transgress the boundaries of objects.

4 2. Plane vs. Recession While Renaissance art is oriented towards the flat plane, the surface of the picture surface presented as parallel to the principle planes being represented, Baroque art tends towards diagonal axes of movement which draw us into the picture and distract us from the flatness of the picture plane.

5 3. Closed vs. Open Renaissance art draws attention to its own rationality, to the clear horizontal and vertical orientations (relating to the ideal of knowing exactly where objects are located) of the image or constructed form. Baroque creations, in contrast, attempt to hide their underlying structures. A Baroque copy of a Renaissance masterpiece such as Raphael s Disputa will, quite characteristically, transform the symmetry of the original into a marked asymmetry.

6 4. Multiplicity and Unity In this oppositional pair, Wölfflin addresses the issue of how art works of each style achieve effects of unity. He [somewhat confusingly?] distinguishes between multiple unity (Renaissance style) and unified unity (Baroque style). By this he means that the Renaissance artist presents a number of clearly identifiable parts ( articulated ) which are subordinated to an overall arrangement or emphasis or single effect. Leonardo s Last Supper is one excellent example among many: Within each group of apostles, each apostle is clearly defined; moreover, each group of apostles is also distinct. However, each individual and all three groups are subsumed or organized into a unified whole with the focal point of the composition being Jesus head. Leonardo takes advantage of the privileged central position of the picture, where viewer s attention is naturally drawn. A Baroque artist will not worry about maintaining the individual integrity of forms and parts, being instead more concerned with achieving an overall effect. Often, this effect involves a strong sense of movement, and in many Baroque art works, the viewer will distinguish a specific figure only with difficulty, the much stronger visual impression being of the overall swirl of dynamic motion.

7 5. Clearness and Unclearness Wölfflin notes that for classic [Renaissance] art, all beauty meant exhaustive revelation of the form; in baroque art, absolute clearness is obscured even where a perfect rendering of facts is aimed at. The pictorial appearance no longer coincides with the maximum of objective clearness, but evades it. The opposition between clearness and unclearness may take many forms, and is obviously related to many of the oppositional pairs already discsussed. That is, the Baroque tendency to obscure forms in the painterly manner of presentation certainly leads to less clearness. Other areas of representational style which are relevant include the use of color. In this realm, Wölfflin notes that, while Renaissance artists such as Leonardo knew of and observed the effects of colored reflections that is, realized that the color of an object may depend upon the reflection of light from a nearby colored surface onto that object he refrained from applying this knowledge to any great extent in his paintings, as he felt that to do so would be to risk clarity. Baroque artists, striving for a type of art in which, as Wölfflin argues, there is always an unsolved remainder, did not hesitate to make greater use of such color effects. In terms of spatial organization, as well, Baroque artists present ambigous situations (e.g., pictures within pictures where the boundaries of each are not clearly articulated, or where it is unclear, as some critics argue is the case with Velazquez s Jesus in the House of Marth and Mary, whether we are looking at a mirror, a painted image, or an opening in a wall).

8 In order to begin exploring Wolfflin s ideas and testing them out for ourselves, let s turn to a number of comparisons of Renaissance and Baroque paintings, with each comparison involving paintings of the same subject matter or theme.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15