Albert Ilg and Julius von Schlosser:
Two Different Interpretations of Cennino Cennini
in Austria-Hungary of 1871 and 1914
in Austria-Hungary of 1871 and 1914
Part one
 |
| Albert Ilg |
N.B.: On Julius von
Schlosser, see in this blog also: Julius
von Schlosser’s Italy, Edited by Loredana Lorizzo; The
Celebrations in Vienna for the 150 Years since the Birth of Julius von Schlosser;
Julius
von Schlosser and Two Anthologies of Art History; Julius
von Schlosser. The meaning of the sources for the history of art of the modern
age; Kunstliteratur
– La letteratura artistica – art literature.
With the exception of his very first year of live, Albert Ilg (1847-1896) spent his relative short existence entirely during the prolonged reign of Franz Joseph (1848 –1916), in the mid of the golden age of Vienna as capital of a multinational empire. Ilg – who will become a leading art historian in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the director of the most important art collection of Vienna and one primary figure in discussions on art and style in the Hapsburg Empire [1] – produced the first German translation of Cennino Cennini’s Book of the Art in 1871 at the age of only 24 years [2]. It was a demanding task, including translating 140 pages from Italian (the critical text of Cennino, as edited by the Milanesi brothers), drafting a sharp introductory text of 23 page and including 40 pages of notes.
Ilg’s translation of Cennini’s book is still mentioned in almost every review on his work, including in various lexica or encyclopaedic dictionaries, showing that his early effort to bring the Book of the Art into German was recognised among the main merits of his entire professional life.
Ilg was a fervent Catholic convert of Jewish origin, with a strong sense of Habsburg identity and belonging to their empire [3]. At that time, Albert Ilg had worked since one year at the k.k. Österreichisches Museum fur Kunst und Industrie, the royal and imperial Austrian museum for art and industry, founded by Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg in 1867 and directed by him since then. Eitelberger had gathered at the museum a team of young scholars from every part of the empire. Among his numerous disciples, Ilg was certainly among the most promising.
Albert Ilg’s curriculum vitae, published by Andreas Dobslaw [4], mentions that, for Cennini’s translation, he had benefited from comments made for him by the German historian of art Hermann Grimm (1828-1901). Around those years, Eitelberger organised the first international congress of art historians (Vienna, 1873): he must have had very good connections to colleagues abroad, in particular in the German speaking countries.
 |
| Albert Ilg's translation of the Book of the Art (1871) in the series Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittealters und der Renaissance (reprint, Wagener editions, 2008) |
The first translation of the Book of the Art into German also inaugurated the most famous series of publications on history of art sources ever (Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittealters und der Renaissance), edited by Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg. The focus of this series was on the interplay between history of art (Kunstgeschichte) and art technique (Kunsttechnik), in Middle Age and Renaissance.
Ilg played an important role for the launch of the series – which lasted from 1871 to 1888 - translating five out of the first seven volumes. Among them, three were about history of art sources from Middle Ages: besides Cennino translation, the German translations of Heraclius (On the colours and arts of the Romans, 1873) [5] and of Theophilus Presbyter (Schedula Diversarum Artium, volume VII, in 1874) [6]. Heraclius was an Italian based in Rom, around 994 a.C.; Theophilus Presbyter was – according to Ilg – the German monk Rugerus, based in North-German Padeborn, between the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century.
Compared with the introduction of the work on Cennino, the introductions to the two other mediaeval translations offer a rich compendium of information on the texts, especially from a philological viewpoint, but do not contain discussion on art style. Partially to explain it, it needs to be said that the works on Heraclius and Theophilus Presbyter were not simply translations (like the one on Cennino had been, as Ilg had benefited from the recent critical edition by the Milanesi brothers) but critical editions themselves, from the original manuscripts. Moreover, Eitelberger did not like abstract style discussions. For him, as shown below, art criticism was mainly a combination of study of techniques and sources.
 |
| Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg |
Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg
Any review of the literature on Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg (1817-1885) would first of all identify him as a pioneer. He was the first professor of History of Art in Vienna (1852). In 1853 he established the "k.k. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale", that is the Austrian-Hungarian central committee for the study and the conservation of monuments. Opening Central Europe to the influence of the Craft and Art movement - originating from the United Kingdom - he was, as already mentioned, the first founder and director of the Imperial and Royal Austrian Museum of Art and Industry (in 1864). In 1871, he launched the above mentioned Quellenschriften series, which is already familiar to us. (For a list of the volumes included in the first series of the Quellenschriften, see the annex below). One year after he held in Vienna the first internal conference of art historians ever, one year before the Vienna World Exhibition of 1873. He was the founder of the Vienna School of History of Art in 1874. He died in 1885.
In an age of acute cultural conservatism, Eitelberger was a liberal minded personality (and had even been part as political activist in the 1848 revolutionary movement, when he took over the responsibility for the political editorial department of the Wiener Zeitung). He fostered a free exchange of views; imported new ideas; created teams of young scholars around him; organised his museum in a modern way, launching a number of pedagogic initiatives around it; had an intense activity of publicist in the newspapers, and tried to gain the interest of the broader public for history of art through new forms of publication (like the Quellenschriften) for the larger public.
Eitelberger was a genuine defender of the multinational and multicultural basis of the empire. At a time in which nationalism was creating the risk of a political and cultural deflagration of the empire, "according to Rudolf Eiterlberger, Vienna did know neither any national nor any religious hate and even not any national policy” [7]. In this sense, he launched - among the many stimulating initiatives encompassing all regions of the empire - an exercise to list a catalogue of all mist relevant mediaeval buildings in the Empire (Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale des österreichischen Kaiserstaates) [8], in 1858. The two volumes also included mediaeval architecture in Milan, Venice and all other Italian regions included in the Empire at that time. Eitelberger wrote in person a 35-page item on the St. Ambrose Basilica in Milan and a 20-page item on the Cathedral and the Baptistery of Cremona..
Through an intelligent hiring policy in museums, authorities offered an opportunity to the best minds of the Empire to study and research in Vienna.. Therefore making of the Vienna School of History of Art a multicultural environment itself. This cosmopolitan attitude was confirmed by facts. For instance, the first pupil of Eitelberger winning a position at the Vienna University was the Bohemian Moriz Thausing, who introduced the positivist views in the Vienna Schools. Years later the Czech Max Dvořák inherited from the German-speaking Riegl the role of leader of the Vienna School, despite some protests from German-national intellectuals in Vienna: he will turn the Vienna School from positivism towards aesthetics and formal analysis, opening the way to Julius von Schlosser after him.
In order to legitimate a non-biased and research-founded attitude to history of art, and apply the same method to all regions and styles of the Empire, Eitelberger combined several cultural motives. First, historicism: he was firmly entrenched in past art developments, with a general historicist attitude and a profound interest for Middle Age and Renaissance, as the common cultural basis on which the art of the Austrian Empire was based. Second, philology: he wanted to make sure that the cultural heritage would be studied on a firm scientific basis: from this descended his idea of the sources of art as 'second pillar' of art history, his motto of "history of art as philology" and the Quellenschriften. Third, technology: the same analytical passion brought him to focus his attention on art techniques.
Publishing Cennino Cennini, Heraclius and Theophilus Presbyter among the very first volumes of the series was in line with several cultural elements of Eitelberger’s school: the interest for Middle Age, the passion for art techniques, and the wish to use history of art sources to reform art theory of his age. For a further analysis on the last point, see the review in this blog of the work by Andreas Dobslaw, entitled "Die Wiener "Quellenschriften" und ihr Herausgeber Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg", and an interesting review by Alexander Auf der Heyde, included in that post.
Compared with the apologetic pages in the introductions by previous translators (Giuseppe Tambroni, Carlo and Gaetano Milanesi, Mary Merrifield and Victor Mottez), the assessment on Cennino in Ilg’s introduction is sharp and at the same time severe.
The main argument by Ilg is that – when Cennino drafted the Book of the Art – he had not been able to keep pace with the spirit of Florence and Padua at his time, humanistic centres which were about to give birth to Renaissance. Cennino – writes the young Ilg in his preface to the Book of the Art’s commented translation into German of 1871 – was, already at his days, a man of the past. In one important passage, Ilg refers to the Book of the Art as a testimony of a dying (absterbend), sinking (untergehend) and already descended (herabgekommene) art, of which he collects and perpetuates the essential notions in the Book of the Art like it were a necrology (Nekrolog) written by somebody recalling the personal virtues of a dead person. Associated to the last (letzten) great representatives of Giotto’s past glory, Cennino had missed any professional contact with those innovators in Italian arts which already existed at his time, and were about to create a bridge to the first generation of Quattrocento. After all, Florence and Padua hosted humanistic schools at that time. Ilg’s first leading conclusion on Cennino is therefore that he belonged to the past, not to present (and even less to the future).
„Es ist von bedeutenden Folgen für Cennino gewesen, dass er sich dem letzten grössern Giottisten gesellte und nicht jenen Malern, in deren Werken wir den Uebergang des Trecento zur Epoche der Uccello, Masolino etc. in leisen Anklängen bemerken. Ob ihn dieser Anschluss an die absterbende Weise einer Schule zu dem wenigbedeutenden Nachahmer derselben machte, als der uns Cennino, der Künstler, entgegentritt, ob diese Lehrerwahl Ursache geworden, dass er gleich andern spätern Vertretern einer untergehenden Richtung, deren Wissen und Können statt durch die That, durch das theoretische Wort des trattato allein wie in einem Nekrolog zu bewahren unternahm; ob nicht umgekehrt a priori sein kleines Talent eben den Lehrling an die traditionell berühmte, aber schon herabgekommene Schule sich anschliessen liess, - das ist heute unerweisbar, doch das letztere wohl das wahrscheinlichere.“
Introduction, pages ix-x.
[Italics not in the original]
|
“It has been of significant consequences for Cennino that he joined the last greater Giotto followers and not those painters, in whose works we notice the transition – step by step - from the fourteenth century to the era of Uccello, Masolino etc. It is today impossible to assert whether this connection to the dying manner of an art school transformed him into the unimportant imitator of the school itself (like Cennino speaks about himself when referring to his artistic activity); or whether it was the choice he happened to make of the teacher which would become the ultimate reason why he (like other late representatives of a declining tendency) decided to preserve knowledge and skills of the school not through artistic activity, but only through the theoretical word of a trattato, like in a necrology; or finally whether – to the contrary – it was his little talent which a priori brought him to connect himself as apprentice to a traditionally famous, but already descended school. However, the latter is probably the most likely.”
Introduction, pages ix-x.
[Italics not in the original]
|
Ilg therefore radically rejects the argument of those who treat Cennino as one of the inventors of the concept of modernity in art, often quoting Cennino’s sentence on Giotto as a modern painter. It is frequent to find references to Cennino in aesthetics writings on modernism of the last hundred years, like if he had been a precursor of contemporary art. While those writings refer to Cennino as the inventor of the concept that “All art and design is modern at the time it is made", Ilg’s view is radically different.
In both Italian versions of Tambroni and Milanesi, the relevant sentence on Giotto’s modernity reads “Il quale Giotto rimutò l'arte del dipignere di greco in latino, e ridusse al moderno; ed ebbe l'arte più compiuta che avessi mai più nessuno”. Merrifield seems to have misunderstood the sense of the first part of the passage, when she translated: “This Giotto introduced the Greek manner of painting among the Latins, and united it to the modern school, and the art became more perfect than it had ever been.” However, she still stressed the concept of modernity. Victor Mottez’s version into French reads: “Giotto changea l’art de la peinture; de la forme grecque il la conduisit à la forme latine moderne. Il posséda l’art le plus complet que jamais personne ait eu ensuite en sa puissance“. Based on all versions available, Ilg should have normally used the German term ‘modern’ in his text.
However, Ilg’s translation of that passage does not include any reference to modernity [9]. In his words, “Jener Giotto verwandelte die Malerkunst vom griechischen wieder in’s italienische und leitete sie zum heutigen Stande. Er handhabte die Kunst vollkommener, als je einer“ (It means: That Giotto transformed painting from Greek back to Latin style, and led it to today’s state. He had a more perfect control of art than everybody ever had” (Chapter 1, page 5). The reference is to the concept of contemporaneousness (‚heutig‘ comes from ‘heute’, which means ‘today’), not to modernity as such.
The second leading view by Ilg on Cennino is that the length and type of vocational apprenticeship he pleaded for in the Book of the Art was one which structurally hindered autonomous art creation. The obligation to spend a very long part of life (12 years) with a single master, and the instruction to follow the master’s style without any possible originality or contamination from other masters was seen by Ilg as substantially destructing any creativeness. He observes that Giotto, while having been disciple of Cimabue, had not complied with this type of servitude. Even more, Ilg states:
„Mit Giotto’s Tod endet die mehr souveräne, isolirte Stellung des grossen Künstlers im Mittelalter, indem nun das wuchernde Gedeihen des Zünftwesen leider auch mit den wirklichen Vorrechten des Talents tabula rasa macht und Meister und Kleckser in Eine Reihe bringt, weil sie in Einer Innungsrolle stehen.”
(see footnote on chapter 27 at pages 144-145)
|
“With Giotto's death ends the more sovereign, isolated position of the Great Artist in the Middle Ages. By now the proliferating prosperity of guilds unfortunately also makes tabula rasa of the real privileges of talent. Masters and daubers are brought in one single a row, because they are in one and the same guild role."
(see footnote on chapter 27 at pages 144-145)
|
„Zwölf
Jahre stand er unter Agnolo’s Leitung, (…). So lange Schulzeit war bei den
Alten gewöhnlich. Rumohr (Ital. Forschung, Vol II., p. 400) erkennt in diesem
Brauche, welcher aus dem immer mehr durchgebildeten Zünftewesen entsprang,
mit Recht eine nicht nützliche Einrichtung; die geistige Uebermacht der
Meister gereichte in Folge zulange währender Einwirkung auf den Zögling
demselben nicht mehr zum Nutzen; sie lehrte und ermunterte die Neulinge nicht
mehr allein, sondern wandelte sie zu schwachen Spiegelungen, richtiger: zu
Schatten des Vorbildes auf Kosten ihrer Individualität und besonderen Anlagen
um, die schaffenstüchtige, zur Erfindung frischeste Zeit der Jugend ward
ihrer schönsten Fähigkeit beraubt, indem alle Kräfte lediglich in Nachahmung
aufgingen.
Freilich
genügte und entsprach solches gerade den mindern Talenten, deren höchstes
Ziel eben hiess: dem Meister gleichzukommen. Cennino spricht sich hierüber
(im 27.Cap.) deutlich
aus, er nennt das “in den Luftkreis (aria) der Meister miteinbezogen warden”.
Aber nicht der ganze Sternenkreis am Kunsthimmel ist damit gemeint,
dessen mannigfachen Strahlen der Jünger das Auge aufthuen soll, sondern nur die
einzelnen Muster der einzelnen Nachfolger, indem jedes Vorbild seinem Schüler
insbesonders eine abgeschlossene Welt gelten muss; hieltest du es anders,
setzt er hinzu, zeichnetest du heute nach diesem, morgen nach jenem Meister,
so müsstest du nothwending Phantast werden. Tugend und Schwächen des Vorbilds
wurden so dem Lernenden heilig, der, selber untergeordneter Begabung, dann
jene stets verblasst, diese durch die eigene
Armuth vergrössert aufweist, während kein fremdes, gesundes Element
hinzutritt und die Degenerirung
aufhält. So ist es denn von Giotto bis Cennino u.a. letzte Vertreter der
Schule ein stetes Falles, dessen Phasen in Taddeo und Agnolo Gaddi die Abtönung zeigen, bis der Giotte’ske
Styl endlich neuen Wandlungen weicht, einem Geschlechte vergleichbar, das
immer nur aus verwandten Gliedern fortgezeugt
und durch keinen fremdartigen Samen neubelebt, allmählich entarter und
erlischt.“
Introduction, pages ix-x.
[Italics
not in the original]
|
“He was twelve years under
Agnolo 's lead (…). Such a long school was usual among the primitives. Rightly
so, Rumohr (Ital. Researches, II 400) recognized this custom (which arose
from the increasing number of guilds) as a non-useful institution. The spiritual supremacy of the master did
not turn anymore to the advantage of the disciple, due to a much too long active
influence. It also did not serve anymore to teach and encourage newcomers,
but converted them into weak reflections, more correctly, into the shade of the model (at the expense of their individuality). They
were stolen the freshest time of their youth and their best capacities, as
all their best strengths only went up in imitation.
Obviously, this was
sufficient only, and corresponded precisely to the needs of the less talented,
whose ultimate goal was identified as matching the masters. Cennino speaks
here very clearly (in Chapter 27), when he significantly mentions "to be
involved in the aria of the
master". Aria (Luftkreis) does
not mean here the whole circle of stars in the Art Heaven, the manifold rays
of which would educate the disciples. He only refers to the individual
pattern of each ‘successor’ following each ‘model’, so that that the model
holds as a closed world to his students. If you ever behaved differently, if
you inspired yourself one day to one master, the other day to another one,
then you would necessarily become somebody suffering of hallucinations, says
Cennino. Both virtues and weaknesses of the ‘model’ became sacred for the student.
As no external, healthy element is included, this makes of students subordinate talents, with the further
aggravations of a poverty of ideas and
degeneration. This occurred from Giotto to Cennino - the last
representative of the school - with a steady
decline, with a few attenuations in Taddeo and Agnolo Gaddi, until Giotto’s
style finally worsened and worsened,
in a race similar to what happens to a genus which produces new generation
only by coupling among relatives, without being revived by any extraneous
seeds, and gradually degenerates and is eventually extirpated.
Introduction, pages ix-x.“
[Italics
not in the original]
|
By way of comparison, it is worth considering that Tambroni (see below the Italian original and the English translation by Merrifield) had taken the contrary view [10]. He substantially justified the practice of a long apprenticeship (and even the condition of substantial servitude of the disciples in the workshops) as a necessity to avoid the dispersion of a know-how which had been built-up over years, taking the only angle of the masters’ material vested interests and ignoring the point of view of art creation.
“In leggendo il libro di Cennino si conosce, che a ragion disse il Vasari, essere le cose in esso comprese tenute per rarissimi segreti a’ que’ tempi antichi. Perocchè ad ogni passo s’incontrano le prove della gelosia con che i maestri guardavano la scienza loro, la quale comunicavano poco a poco e di grado in grado a’discepoli. Pel qual modo d’insegnamento e’ conveniva a’ giovani, a voler apprendere, mettersi in istato di servitù, siccome si raccoglie dal cap. ii: e con questo di dispongono con amore di ubbidienza; stando in servitù per venire a perfezione di ciò. (…) E in due luoghi ripete Cennino, che Taddeo Gaddi fu discepolo di Giotto per anni ventiquattro, e ch’egli setto lo fu d’Agnolo durante dodici anni. Nel cap. civ poi discorre il tempo ch’egli credea necessario per apprendere l’arte, e lo determina a tredici anni; cioè, un’anno intero disegnare: poi stare per sei anni ad apprendere i lavori più materiali e grossolani: ed altri se in praticare a colorire: adornare di mordenti: far drappi d’oro: usare di lavorare di muro. É perciò che io credo fossero insegnate con grande cautela e poco a poco le discipline dell’arte a’ discepoli, stando sempre fra’maestri l’antica tradizione delle pratiche.”
(p.xxiii)
|
“In reading the book of Cennino, we acknowledge the truth of what Vasari asserted, namely, that the things comprised in it were considered great secrets in those ancient times; for in every page we find proofs of the great jealousy with which the masters concealed their knowledge, which they communicated only step by step to their disciples. And this mode of instruction, by placing students in a state of servitude, as is observed in the second chapter, was well adapted to youths desirous of learning. (…) Cennino repeats in two places that Taddeo Gaddi was the disciple of Giotto for twenty-four years, and that he himself was that of Agnolo for twelve years. In chap. 104, he afterwards discourses on the time in which he thought the art might be acquired, and he determines on thirteen years; namely, one whole year to be devoted to drawing; then six years to learning the mechanical and more common parts of the art; and another six years to practising colouring, adorning with mordants, making draperies of gold, and practising painting on walls’’. And for this reason I think that the discipline of the art was taught to the disciples with great caution and by gradual steps, the masters being always the depositories of the old traditions of practice.”
(pp. xxxv-xxxvi)
|
Summing up, also on this second crucial element the young Ilg demonstrates to have sharp judgment and autonomous views. In some respect, his focus on the shortcomings of the vocational training system for painters in Cennino’s time may also be due to his biography: he wrote at 24 years, after he had been given a great responsibility by Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg in the preparation of the first volume of an important series of history of art sources, as we will see. It is therefore not entirely surprising that the young Ilg could not do anything else but sharply criticise a vocational system based upon the total suppression of any autonomy for the disciples
Drawing a final conclusion on the Book of the Art, the young Ilg observes that only a quite limited number of chapters contain useful elements to grasp the concept of art for Cennino. The remainder of the work is of technical interest only. This leads to a severe assessment (mindergünstige Wort) on Cennino’s role compared to the general spirit (Gesammtgeist) of his age, assessment which is however mitigated by the recognition of the richness of the information on an already exhausted type of painting he transmitted to us.
„Im
trattato gibt er [Cennino] auch fast nur handwerkliche Vorschiften, ohne über
die eigentliche Kunst, ihren Zweck, Sinn und Werth sich Rechenschaft, uns
seine Ansichten darzulegen. Was dennoch des Meisters Denken über die geistige
Bedeutung seines Künstlertums bekundet, reducirt sich auf folgendes.
Blos
die ersten 3, das 27-29. und das 104. Cap. Sind(…), von allgemeinem, nicht
nur für den Techniker von Interesse. Wenig einzelne Stellen ausgenommen
Wenig
einzelne Stellen ausgenommen tritt er sonst nie aus dem dürren Receptenstyl
heraus. Immerdar redet er als Handwerker zu uns, ohne sich den Schein zu
geben, als wolle er mehr sein. Er steht
damit nicht vereinzelt, sondern der Mehrzahl seiner Genossen gleich, denen
genug war, zu schaffen, zu arbeiten, ohne statt ihrer Kunstleistung selbst
deren Zweck, Bedeutung und Zukunft in den Vordergrund zu drängen, ohne an
ihre Person zu denken. Jedoch es fehlt nicht gänzlich an dem Bestreben,
über die Kunst als ethisches Moment selbst zu discutiren. Auch Cennino bemüht
sich und beginnt damit seine Schrift.
Wir
sind soweit gekommen, dass auch das
letzte mindergünstige Wort über den Autor ausgesprochen ist. Es war
nothwendig, diese Urtheil vorauszuschicken, welches kein allgemeines über
Cennino ist, sondern nur für die Gesichtspunkte gilt, von denen auch unser
Meister betrachtet werden muss, damit auch er in der richtigen Stellung neben
seinen Zeitgenossen und im Verhältnisse zu dem Gesammtgeiste der Periode
erscheine. Aber ich weiss recht wohl, dass diese Beurtheilungen nicht die
entscheidenden für Cennino sind, sein Werth ist auf einem besonderen Gebiete
zu suchen, das zu bestellen die gleichzeitigen Künstler selten gedachten, die
somit beim Sinken ihrer Schulen nichts von den werthvollen Errungenschaften
mehrerer Menschenalter den kommenden Geschlechtern retteten. Rechten wir
daher nicht mit dem Zufall, welcher Cennino in die Periode des Absterbens der
Giotte’sken Richtung versetzte und ihm auch kein gewaltiges Reformtalent
verlieh; gegen das eine und andere vermag das Individuum nichts: völlig sein Verdienst, seine lobwürdige That aber ist gewiss das Unternehmen, der Nachwelt
die ganze grosse Bedeutung jener Schule nochmals vor Augen zu stellen, wozu
er keinen geeigneteren Weg erwählen könnte, als, indem er die reiche Fülle
der Mittel vor uns ausbreitete, welche wie bei allem auch hier mit den
Kräften wuchsen und die äusserlichen Begleiter, Proben und Beweise des
geistigen Werthes bilden.“
(pages
xvii-xviii)
Italics not in the
original
|
“In the trattato he [
Cennino ] also gives almost exclusively artisanal prescriptions without any accountability
for himself and any information to us on his views on the actual art, its
purpose, meaning and value. What nevertheless describes the Master’s thinking
about the spiritual significance of his own art may be reduces to the
following: with the addition of a very few other passage including each a few
digits of words, only the first 3 chapters, chapters 27-29 and chapter
104.(…) are of general interest, and not just for technicians.
With the exception of a little
few excerpts in individual places, Cennino never abandons the otherwise arid recipes
style. He always talks to us as a craftsman, without giving himself any appearance
as if he wanted to be more. He is thus not isolated. The same applies to the majority of his comrades, for whom it was
enough to get the work done, without pushing to the fore purposes, importance
and future of art and without thinking about their own persons. However,
he is not entirely missing the attempt to discuss the arts as an ethical
moment; in this respect, Cennino makes an effort and begins his writing with
those ethical arguments.
We have advanced so far in
the introduction that the last unfavourable
word about the author has now been pronounced. It was necessary to frontload
this judgment, which is not a general one over Cennino, but applies only to
the general perspective from which our master has to be assessed, to make
sure he also appears in the correct position with reference to his contemporaries,
and well assessed against the Gesammtgeiste (comprehensive spirit) of the
period. But I know very well that these reviews or evaluations are not
decisive for Cennino. His value must be found in a particular area, on which other
artists – any time their art schools entered into a crisis – very rarely took
action, thereby forgetting to save for future generations the most valuable
achievements by past generations. It was indeed a fortune that Cennino was
active in the period of the withering away of Giotto’s art – and that the
crisis also did not provide him with any massive talent as a reformer. Cennino’s
merit was not his capacity to resist against the crisis or renovate himself.
What is completely his own merit, his action to be praised is certainly the endeavour
to bring again to his successors – before their eyes - a proof of the great
importance of those dying schools. To this end, he could not choose any
better way than spreading before us the full richness of the means, which had
become more and more elaborated with time and are the external companions,
proofs and evidence of the intellectual spirit.”
(pages
xvii-xviii)
Italics not in the
original
|
Indeed, a very sharp assessment on Cennino’s work. Its main merit is to have documented the spiritual crisis of a world which had no future. But also a statement which – in Vienna of that time – had precise polemic tones on certain aspects of the contemporary discussions on the “national style” in Austria-Hungary, at the so-called time of the ‘Ringstraße’, the new monumental circumvallation of Vienna shaping the architectural taste and the cultural identity of the Empire in the second half of the XIX Century.
To understand this in full, it is necessary to make a step back. In 1849 John Ruskin wrote his theoretical work on the Gothic art, called “The Seven Lamps of Architecture” [11]: they are the seven moral categories to which the work of architects must be oriented, following the Gothic model: sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory and obedience. It includes the thesis that the Gothic style would particularly fit with public buildings (these are the years in which Westminster is rebuild in neo-gothic style, after the original palace has gone burned). Between 1851 and 1853 John Ruskin published a second famous work on architecture in three volumes, called “The Stones of Venice” [12]. At that time visiting Venice meant entering into the Habsburg Empire, and the work must have had an important echo in Vienna. In a chapter on “The Nature of Gothic”, Ruskin set the stones of the Gothic Revival movement, defining the features of the Gothic style. In another chapter, on the Ducal Palace in Venice, defines it as the prototype of public buildings. In 1856, the Habsburg family commissions the construction of the first neo-gothic building in Vienna, the Votivkirche. Only two years later, Eitelberger orders the census of all significant gothic buildings in Austria-Hungary (as mentioned above). In 1872, the neo-gothic construction of the new City-Hall of Vienna is set into motion.
 |
| Wien - The Votivkirche |
In conclusion: Albert Ilg was immerged – at the time of the translation of Cennino Cennini – in a cultural climate highly favourable to mediaeval art and to gothic revival. He would therefore be easy for him to chant another hymn to Cennino’s world. And yet, he made exactly the opposite. One of the originating myths of gothic revival was the renewed admiration for the mediaeval artists, their religious ardour and their collective readiness to dedicate themselves to the implementation of artwork, without any interest for individual recognition and the need to reveal a genial personality. As evident from the above statements, already at 24 years Albert Ilg radically opposed these streams of thought. Starting from 1880 and up to the end of hid life, he will lead – perhaps in vain – the resistance against neo-gothic influences in Vienna, promoting Baroque and Neo-Baroque as ‘national’ stiles in Austria-Hungary.
________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX I: THE FIRST SERIES OF THE QUELLENSCHRIFTEN (1871-1888)
Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittealters und der Renaissance – (R. Eitelberger 1817-1885)
I – Cennino Cennini, Das Buch von der Kunst oder Tractat der Malerei, Albert Ilg, 1871
II – Ludovico Dolce, Aretino oder Dialog über Malerei von Lodovico Dolce, Rudolf Eitelberger, 1871
III – Albrecht Dürer, Briefe, Tagebücher und Reime, Moriz Thausing, 1872
IV – Heraclius, von den Farben und Künsten der Römer, Albert Ilg, 1873
V - Michel Angelo Biondo, Von der hochedlen Malerei, Rudolph Valdek and Albert Ilg, 1873
VI – Ascanio Condivi, Das Leben des Michelangelo Buonarroti, Albert Ilg, 1874
VII – Theophilus Presbyter, Schedula Diversarum Artium, Albert Ilg, 1874.
VIII – Kunstbestrebungen am Bayerischen Höfen unter Herzog Albert V. und seinem Nachfolger Wilhelm V, J. Stockbauer, 1874
IX – Donatello, seine Zeit und Schule, eine Reihenfolge von Abhandlungen, Hans Semper, 1875
X – Des Johann Neudörfer schreib- und rechenmeisters zu Nürnberg nachrichten von künstlern und werkleuten daselbst aus dem jahre 1547, Johann Neudörffer, 1875
XI –Leone Battista Alberti’s kleinere kunsttheoretische Schriften, Hubert Janitschek, 1877
XII – Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Unger, 1878
XIII – Das Buch der Malerzeche in Prag, (Kniha bratrstva malirskeho v Praze) 1348- 1527, Matthias Pangerl, 1878
XIV - Arnold Houbraken's Grosse Schouburgh der niederländischen Maler und Malerinnen, Alfred von Wurzbach, 1880
XV-XVII – Lionardo da Vinci, Das Buch der Malerei nach dem Codex Vaticanus (Urbinas), Heinrich Ludwig, 1882
XVIII – Lionardo da Vinci, Das Buch der Malerei nach dem Codex Vaticanus 1270, Heinrich Ludwig, 1882
|
Quellenschriften for art history and art of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance - (edited by R. Eitelberger 1817-1885 )
I - Cennino Cennini , The book of the art or treaty of painting, Albert Ilg, 1871
II - Ludovico Dolce , Aretino or dialogue on painting by Lodovico Dolce , Rudolf Eitelberger , 1871
III - Albrecht Dürer, Letters, diaries and rhymes , Moriz Thausing , 1872
IV – Heraclius, On the colours and arts of the Romans, Albert Ilg , 1873
V - Michel Angelo Biondo , On the most noble painting, Rudolph Valdek and Albert Ilg, 1873
VI - Ascanio Condivi , The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti, Albert Ilg , 1874
VII - Theophilus Presbyter , Schedula Diversarum Artium, Albert Ilg , 1874.
VIII - Art aspirations at the Bavarian courts under Duke Albert V and his successor, Wilhelm V , J. Stockbauer , 1874
IX - Donatello, his time and school, a sequence of papers , Hans Semper , 1875
X - Of Johann Neudorfer - Writing and arithmetic masters to Nurnberg - News from artists and workmen - from the year 1547, Johann Neudörffer, 1875
XI Leone Battista Alberti 's smaller art-theoretical writings , Hubert Janitschek , 1877
XII - Sources of Byzantine art history, Frederick William Unger , 1878
XIII - The Book of Painters mine in Prague, ( Kniha bratrstva malirskeho v Praze ) 1348-1527 , Matthias Pangerl , 1878
XIV - Arnold Houbraken 's Big Schouburgh on the Dutch painters and paintresses, Alfred von Wurzbach , 1880
XV- XVII - Leonardo da Vinci , The Book of painting from the Vatican (Urbinas) Codex, Heinrich Ludwig, 1882
XVIII – Lionardo da Vinci, The Book of painting from the Codex Vaticanus 1270, Heinrich Ludwig, 1882
|
________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE
[1] See the Necrology by Wendelin Boeheim in the Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses (Yearbook of the Collections of
History of Art of the Imperial House), 1898, pages 354-359. http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/jbksak1898/0402
[2] This library holds the facsimile
edition of the 1871 original, published by Wagener Edition, Melle in 2008. The
original Braumüller edition is available on the internet at
[3] Rampley, Matthew – The Vienna
School of Art History. Empire and the Politics of Scholarship, 1847-1918, The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013, p.78. (held in this library)
[4] Dobslaw, Andreas – Die Wiener “Quellenschriften”
und ihr Herausgeber Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg, Deutscher Kunstverlag, Berlin
Mïnchen 2009, p 176. (held in this library)
[5] Heraclius. Von den Farben und Künsten der Römer. Originaltext
und Übersetzung. Mit Einleitung, Noten und Excursen verseheln von Albert Ilg,
Wien, 1873. For the original, see
[6] Theophilus Presbyter. Schedula diversarum atrium, Bd. 1:
Revidierter Text, Übersetzung und Appendix von Albert Ilg, Anonymous Bernensis.
Zum ersten Male herausgegeben und übersetzt von Hermann Hagen, Wien, 1874.
The library holds the reprint version
by Otto Zeller Verlag, dated 1970. For the original, see: https://archive.org/details/scheduladiversa00pregoog
[7] Vybíral, Jindrĭch, “… die Kunst muss aus
nationalem Boden hervorgehen“. Die Erfindung des tschechischen Nationalstils,
in: Matthias Krüger – Isabella Woldt (eds). Im Dienste der Nation.
Identifikationsstiftungen und Identitätsbrüche in Werken der bildenden Kunst,
Berlin 2011, pp. 77-94.
[8] Mittelalterliche
Kunstdenkmale des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, Mittelalterliche
Kunstdenkmale des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, herausgegeben von Dr. Gustav
Heider, Professor Rud. V. Eitelberger und Architecten J. Hieser, Stuttgart,
Verlag Ebner & Seubert, 1858 and 1860 (2 volumes)
See:
[9] The same translation, referring to
the concept of contemporaneousness instead of modernity, is included in the
later version by Thompson, who wrote „“and that Giotto changed the profession
of painting from Greek back into Latin, and brought it up to date; and he had more finished craftsmanship than anyone has
had since“ To the contrary, Verkade’s German version of a few decades later (1914-1916)
would stress the element of modernisation (“Jener Giotto verließ die
bizantinische Malerei und machte sie zu einer italienischen; er modernisierte
die Kunst und beherrschte sie vollständiger, als je einer zuvor“.”That Giotto
abandoned the byzantine painting and transformed it into an Italian one; he
modernised the art and had a better command on it than anybody before”.
[10] The Milanesi brothers, Merrifield
and Victor Mottez did not express views on this issue.
_______________________________________________________________________________
ALL THE POSTS IN THE CENNINI'S SERIES
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento