CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Francesco Mazzaferro
Cennino Cennini vs. Leon Battista Alberti.
variations on the concept of pictorial composition.
Part three
 |
Fig. 32) Roberto
Rossellini (1906-1977) – TV Series “The Age of Cosimo de’ Medici”. Part III –
Leon Battista Alberti. Alberti admiring Donatello’s David. ©Flamingo Video
|
NOTE: This is the last in a series of four posts dedicated to the comparison between Cennino Cennini and Leon Battista Alberti. Bibliographical quotations will be shown at the end of the last part.
To begin from the first post, please, click here.
Cennini proposes
a few operational composition techniques. First, Troncelliti explains the
technology (based on the use of strings) through which Cennini would divide the
painted area in regular geometric spaces. Quoting Judit Field, Troncelliti
explains these methods are substantially similar to the one used by Masaccio in
The Trinity.
***
Latifah Troncelliti and the second analyses of
composition in Cennini and Alberti, or how Cennino equalizes the result 1:1
Latifah
Troncelliti, visiting professor in several US universities, is a philologist in
romance languages. She has devoted an intriguing and well written monograph
exactly to a comparison between Alberti and Cennini, heading to almost complete
divergent conclusions from those of Rudolf Kuhn.
Her studies are
in line with the above mentioned works of Julius von Schlosser. But the most
direct source of inspiration is a 1971 essay of the Danish scholar Lise Bek.
Lise Bek has made the first organic attempt to revisit the ‘classical’ terms of
the comparison between the two authors, finding out important elements of
symmetry between their works. I would certainly recommend everybody to read the
essay. I would like to express my gratitude to the Academy of Denmark in Rome,
for having provided me for that text.
Troncelliti’s
starting point is that Alberti and Cennini were more or less contemporaneous.
This most probably means that the existence of the young Alberti overlapped
with the one of the old Cennini. However, while inhabiting Tuscany at the same
time, they lived parallel existences, without meeting and knowing each other:
the former, as a leading intellectual, fully backed by a comprehensive
education and with a background as scholar in philosophy, rhetoric and science
(but substantially ignorant of visual art in terms of practical
implementation), integrated in and remaining confined to the upper class,
without capacity to spreading his message to real artists; the second, as a
practitioner who had been working in his youth in the highly successful
workshop of Agnolo Gaddi, but had most probably failed to develop any successful
activity as a painter with time and had turned therefore to write a manual on
visual art techniques possibly as an alternative source of income, at the end
of a long and difficult existence (which may have finished in poverty, like it
happened to Paolo Uccello).
Cennini
For Latifah
Troncelliti, Cennini is a painter of the very early Renaissance, but one who
does not have any versatile cultural background backing his statements on art
tecnique. He shares with almost the totality of other artists of his time
(including mainstream authors of Quattrocento, with the exception of really
very few ones of them) the feature of being first and foremost a craftsman,
associated to a gild and excluded from both high education as well as from any
possibility to have access to theoretical sources and learn from scholars. His
strength resides in the very rich expertise he accumulated over years on visual
art techniques, the direct knowledge of the activity of art workshops, and the
clear understanding of the challenges with which their members were confronted
daily.
Cennino also
uses vernacular at a time when the young Italian language has not yet reached
any precise definition of aesthetic concepts. For instance – according to
Troncelliti – the definitions of ‘art’ and ‘science’, of their mutual relations
and possible differences and overlaps are linguistically imprecise, and the
terms are often used with a different meaning.
However, some
aspects of Cennino’s writing are revolutionary, as they do not belong to any
past art literature, nor will be included in any later works. The concept of
phantasy (defined as the possibility to depict things which do not exist) is
central to Cennino’s work, Troncelliti finds. She excludes it would be a
derivation from Quintilian (as proposed by Leonello Venturi), and attributes it
to an instinctive assessment by Cennino on the creative powers of artists.
Alberti, to the contrary, states that “things which are not visible do not
concert the painter”: there is no real space for imagination for him.
As also
mentioned by Kuhn, the core role of phantasy does not imply, however, the
attribution of a general licence to the artist to draw whatever he wants,
simply following his own “creative demon”. There must be a system of limits to
phantasy. While however Kuhn sees it in the ‘manner’ of the master (which each
painter has to follow for years, before finding out his own style) Troncelliti
refers to a complete different set of constraint to the painter’s phantasy, in
Cennino’s views: the necessity to balance fantasy with observation of the
nature. Naturalism and sense of dream co-existed in several painters of
Quattrocento, first of all Botticelli, Troncelliti notes.
The absence of
any rigid composition theory in the Book
of the Art is an asset, and not a liability. Cennini offers a chance to the
artist to experiment, when producing art. To the contrary, Alberti forces the
artist to go through a rigid sequencing to achieve a composition, which limits
the capacity to freely exercise ‘story telling’. Alberti also conceives
composition as an abstract exercise, which has to be completed before
implementation. On ‘narrative’, Cennino is less rational and more visual: for
him the painter must be able to create on the spot a story, which must be in
visible terms. Referring to Alberti, Troncelliti writes: “A story not yet
represented is not a visual invention; it has no relation to Cennini’s fantasia, which moves and develops in
the pictorial space and whose content refuses to be defined by conceptual
thinking.”
It should be
mentioned here that Latifah Troncelliti’s assessment on the treatise is in line
with the positive criticism of a few scholars concerning the very few (and
often of a very uncertain attribution) remaining art pieces of Cennino (on
which a separate post will be devoted in this blog). This is in particular of
the Hungarian scholar Miklós Boskovits, in his 1968 assessment of Cennino
Cennini as a “non-conformist painter”: for him the critics’ prevailing negative
assessment on Cennino as a non-original painter must be radically put into
question. Contrary to what generally believed, Cennini was neither a Giottesque
painter (Giotto was much too far away, chronologically) nor simply a disciple
of Agnolo Gaddi, but the representative of a late-gothic style which combined
forms of expressionism and naturalism. The role of phantasy in painting – says
Boskovits – implies that Cennino intends to surprise, astonish and amuse his
public, almost in a modern way. He is not at the search of an ideal concept of
beauty; by intentionally refusing to stick to formal perspective techniques
which were already well known, by focusing on the naturalistic descriptions of
some details, by displaying and “instinctive, imaginary and often gross style”,
Cennino wants to make an innovative use of phantasy. This thesis has been most
recently confirmed by the publication illustrating the 2008 Berlin exhibition
on “Cennino Cennini and the tradition of the Tuscan painting between Giotto and
Lorenzo Monaco”, with the title “Fantasie
und Handwerk”(Fantasy and Handwork), on which a separate post is being
prepared.
Turning back to
Troncelliti, while Cennino authors a treaty on painting, he is deeply convinced
that his book alone cannot to make a good painter. He says it expressly: even
studying day and night his book will not make a good painter. Therefore, what
counts is being acquainted with practical methods helping a painter to express
at best their talent. Moreover, he several times stresses the idea that a
painter must be delighted of his daily work (a modern term used by Troncelliti
would be ‘joy of painting’).
 |
| Fig. 33) Masaccio, The Trinity, Santa Maria Novella, 1428 circa |
 |
| Fig. 34) The Trinity geometric composition (See: http://www.kenney-mencher.com) |
More generally,
Cennino recommends allocating figures in the ‘story’ through identifying
central points, using them to allocate space among figures and develop central
axes around which to develop stories. Only a few weeks ago, Amanda Lillie of
the National Gallery has published an online article going into Troncelliti’s
direction. Her view is that Cennini’s contribution to art theory has been
significantly underestimated, and that his views on pictorial composition have
been adopted by Renaissance masters, with a specific example on Raphael: the
simple geometric structure underpinning the Garvagh
Madonna.
 |
| Fig. 35) Raphael, 'The Garvagh Madonna', about 1509–10(Source: Amanda Lillie, National Gallery) |
 |
| Fig. 36) Raphael, Underdrawing of 'The Garvagh Madonna'. (Source: Amanda Lillie, National Gallery) |
Moreover,
Troncelliti focuses on Cennini’s colour composition, based on colour contrasts.
While Cennino pays a tribute to Aristotelian theories of a seven-colour scale,
he also choses actual pigments to be found in nature (even recalling the search
for colours he made together with his father), and describes their tonalities
(seven kind of red, six of yellow, seven of green, three of blue). On gilding,
he focuses on its use for textile only (differently from Byzantine painting),
and uses it like Fra Angelico or Botticelli did. He uses colours to ensure
relief in painting and volume. In his explanation of ‘sfumato’ he fundamentally
describes techniques used in Quattrocento. He explains how to use natural
sunlight in frescos, to avoid they would look like flat.
In conclusion, for
Troncelliti Cennino Cennini is the prototype of a painter who decides to use
his own direct expertise to write a manual for other painters: an artist
writing for artists, a practitioner for practitioners. For him, composition has
an eminently operational importance. Troncelliti says that Cennini should be
included as in the same category as Ghiberti, Leonardo and Vasari. He belongs
to a different category from Alberti who – as a non- artist – is the prototype
of the art critic. Indeed – even more than Alberti – Cennino Cennini displays
many techniques effectively used in early Renaissance, including composition
techniques. It is the symbol of an art creator who tries taking in his own
hands the transmission of his professional know-how, and does not accept the
mediation of scholars and other cultivated experts. With the
Counter-reformation, this category of artists will almost cease to exist, as
artists will be deprived of the possibility to communicate directly – without
the intermediation of art theory – with other artists.
Alberti
For Troncelliti,
Alberti was – first of all – a master in rhetoric. He had the ability to
re-package existing sources – mainly those from Greek and Latin origin – in a
series of different areas and to draft new texts in a way to make them more
easily readable and digestible to the educated public of his time. Original
thinking, in this respect, was less necessary, and many arguments by Alberti,
which have been analysed through the eyes of a very favourable literature
following Jacob Burckhardt epic interpretation of the author, should be in fact
more sombrely interpreted as merely rhetoric exercises.
While saying
that he addresses painting as a painter in his treatise - says Troncelliti -
Alberti did not really manage to turn to reason as a truly artist. Alberti’s
claim that he his writing ‘as a painter for painters’ does not resist an
analytical examination. He did not understand the fundamental importance of
talent and motivation, and kept thinking that – as everything can be properly
learned - his manual could help creating new generations of visual artists. He
proclaimed the artists’ glory and reputation as the ultimate purpose of art,
something which is often alien to true artists. True artists – writes
Troncelliti – are more interested in their own art creations than in the social
recognition they can gain among powerful members of the society.
Reversing an
argument often used by others against Cennini, Troncelliti takes the view it
was Alberti who in reality was not tuned with his own time’s visual art, while
on the contrary art production in the workshops (and therefore the production
of individual art works) occurred exactly according to Cennini’s prescriptions.
There are at least four reasons why Alberti did not have any impact on the
painting culture of his time (while he would have an important one later on,
starting from Cinquecento).
First, as
already mentioned, Alberti did not write for painters (and even the vernacular
version he compiled of De Pictura
would have been incomprehensible to a very large portion of that time of
artists).
Second,
Alberti’s real expertise on art practice was pretty limited. He mentioned his
painting activity as a leisure activity only, and even his admirers – like
Cecil Grayson – must admit that no work of him has remained, and that most probably
their quality must have been pretty modest. More importantly – Troncelliti
claims – all processes Alberti described in the treatise reveal (differently
from Cennino) a profound incomprehension of the activity of a painter: in
particular, of his necessarily ‘material’ activity as a craftsman, being
confronted with the translation of creative impulses and conversion of
materials into physical objects, and of the joy of material creation by
passion.
 |
Figg. 37-38) Roberto Rossellini (1906-1977) – TV
Series “The Age of Cosimo de’ Medici”. Part III – Leon Battista Alberti: The
Humanism – The Visual Pyramid. ©Flamingo Video
|
Third, despite
appearances, Alberti was extraneous to the prevailing naturalistic and
realistic visual culture of his contemporaneous. Any realistic depiction of
reality, writes Troncelliti, would have implied “to show ugliness as well as
beauty”, like in a painting of Ghirlandaio displaying a diseased nose. Alberti
lived in a neo-platonic world, in which only abstract beauty should be
portrayed. His conception of beauty did not foresee the inclusion of the ugly
side of the world, and was therefore not in line with Quattrocento.
 |
| Fig. 39) Ghirlandaio, An Old Man and his Grandson, ca. 1490, Louvre, Paris |
Fourth, some of
the most technical concepts contained in De
Pictura have some mathematical faults, which made extremely difficult to
implement them ad litteram. Repeating
an already mentioned argument of Michael Baxandall, the scholar says that the
only Renaissance artists who were able to correct and implement them are
Mantegna (who found an empirical way out of the mistakes) and Piero della
Francesco (who had a profound mathematical education).
Alberti theories
may have been successful in later phases of painting, but not in Quattrocento.
While Alberti dedicates the vernacular edition of De Pictura to Brunelleschi, and quotes in the introduction “our great
friend Donatello” as well as Luca della Robbia, Lorenzo Ghiberti (called
Nencio) and Masaccio, Troncelliti remarks that the examples of art works quoted
by the author always date back to antiquity (they are therefore purely
rhetorical references to Pliny, as all pieces of Greek painting went lost) and
in a single case refer to Giotto. With the exception of Brunelleschi’s dome,
none of the numerous masterpieces of the time is ever described, commented or
used as example for the art theories propagated. There is also no historic
proof of a close reciprocal relation between Alberti and Brunelleschi, as in
Antonio Manetti’s Vita di Brunelleschi
(Life of Brunelleschi) the two are shown as being in bad relations. Troncelliti
even raise the hypothesis that Alberti may have not been aware of the
individual works. In the case of Masaccio, moreover, he had already passed away
at 28 years, before Alberti had returned to Florence from exile. Many of these
arguments originate from Lise Bek’s above mentioned study.
The ultimate
proof of Alberti’s alienation from his time is in his theory of colours, which
has been defined by Samuel Edgerton “A Mediaeval Bottle without Renaissance
Wine”. Alberti’s concept of ‘friendship of colours’, says Troncelliti, was
basically focused on the use of black and white, and a reference to four basic
colours (fir-colour, blue-grey, green of water, ash) he personally preferred,
and would like to see to be used as much as possible.
In conclusion,
Alberti assembled Greek and Latin sources to prepare a theoretical text on
painting. However, his compilation did not reach out to artists, and the
immediate impact of Alberti’s treatise on Quattrocento painting has been indeed
greatly exaggerated. However, a new genre of literature was born: the one of a
theory discussion on art principles, written by a non-artist for a public of
non-artists. This was the birth of art criticism.
Thomas Puttfarken and the third analysis of
composition in Cennini and Alberti: match suspended, there is no winner
The late Thomas
Puttfarken authored in 2000 a monograph entitled “The Discovery of Pictorial
Composition. Theory of Visual Order in Painting 1400-1800”. The first 180 pages of it are entitled:
“Why the Renaissance did not Talk about Pictorial Composition”. What Puttfarken
means is that – as far as today’s concept of composition is concerned, i.e. the
one which had prevailed for centuries until the US critic Clement Greenberg
proclaim the death of easel painting and formal composition – we are all
children or grandchildren of France Baroque painting, from Poussin onwards.
Explaining this further, Puttfarken takes the view that the concept of
pictorial composition which Kandinsky and Mondrian still used for abstract art
corresponds – in Quintilian’s rhetoric theory – not to compositio, but to the different and more elaborated concept of dispositio. The difference between the
two concepts is that Italian Renaissance – applying to painting Quintilian’s compositio – could not figure out a
pictorial composition in different terms but the way in which one or more
bodies form a picture; French Baroque,
to the contrary, enlarged the concept (to use Rudolf Arnheim’s language) to a
‘total configuration of forces’ or – in the terms of Gestalt psychology – “a
holistic Gestalt … with its self-contained nature, its regular shape and its
more or less intricate and complex internal structure”. Pictorial composition
is not only about the way in which paintings are structured. It is about “the
way in which figures, objects and worlds conduct themselves in relation to the
order of the image, and the degree of visual value and importance we attribute
to them… The aim of pictorial composition, understood in this way, is not
purely or primarily formal harmony; it is the visual conveying of meaning and
significance”. Rembrandt’s Syndics could be interpreted (in the
traditional sense of compositio) as a
horizontal and symmetric combination of six figures. More important (in the
sense of disposition) is the
compulsory feeling the Dutch painter creates in a viewer, like if the six
figures were waiting for him and observe him entering in the room. Modern
composition is in this sense creates ‘a sense of privilege’, which is at times
a normal and uncomplicated one, at times very complex and even based on a
subversion of visual order.
 |
| Fig. 40) Rembrandt, The Syndics, 1662, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam |
Puttfarken’s key
reference seems to be Ernst Gombrich’s study on “Art and Illusion: A Study in
the Psychology of Pictorial Representation” of 1960. In it Gombrich identifies
a fundamental contrast in art between ‘order’ (represented by composition) and
‘life’ (represented by fidelity to nature). Italian Renaissance considered
order as a traditional achievement and focused on fidelity of the
representation of nature. “It has always puzzled historians – write Gombrich –
that … there is no word about composition in Leonardo’s Trattato, and Vasari hardly uses the term”.
Cennini
Puttfarken also
starts with Cennino Cennini, noticing that the terms ‘comporre’ or ‘componire’
(both ‘compose’) are used in three relevant passages of the Book of the Art. They indicate “a
graver, a more important task” than simply drawing. “Since comporre is related, on the one hand, to the artist’s fantasia, his creative imagination, and
on the other to the actual execution of the work, I may not be over-stretching
my point in suggesting that the term is meant to denote the bringing into being
– or giving reality to – the figure or istoria
imagined by the artist.”
In the
introduction, Cennino associate painting and poetry as the two disciplines
which permit the poet to “compose and bind together, as he pleases, according
to his inclinations. (…) In the same way, the painter is given the freedom to
compose a figure, standing, seated, half-man, half-horse, as he pleases,
according to his imagination”. Cennino – observes Puttfarken – refers to
“composing a single figure”.
Cennino also
refers to composition for painting of table painting and frescos. In the first case, he
recommends: “The Charcoal wants to be tied to a little cane or stick, so that
it comes some distance from the figure; for it is a great help to you in
composing”. In the second case, he writes “Then compose storie or figure with
charcoal, as I have described. And always keep your areas in scale and
regular”.
Cennino mainly
refers “to the spaces or areas that are to be occupied by the figures that the
artist is about to compose”. Cennino also recommends, to this aim, to draw
vertical lines “providing a central axis around which the figure can be drawn”,
and horizontal ones displaying “the ground or horizon for the figure to stand
on”.
This concept of
composition does not corresponds to the one described by Puttfarken. “In
Cennino, as later in Alberti, storia
has to be understood as a narrative scene consisting of several figure, i.e. a scene telling a story.
There is no reference as to how the figures should be arranged in relation to
each other or to the picture as a whole”.
In this respect,
says Puttfarken, Cennino may have not fully understood Giotto and Taddeo Gaddi
and the previous two-three generation of painters to which he refers to as his
source of inspiration. They had “invented or reformulated the order of sacred
narrative”, “created new pictorial formulae”, “new types of images”. In other
words, “they were not merely craftsmen”.
Puttfarken
concludes that “being two generations removed from Taddeo Gaddi, and three from
Giotto, probably means that Cennino – despite his own claims – does not
directly reflect their ideas about their art, but a much watered-down workshop
version shared by what is often called the Giotto school. Innovative or
inventive composing was not necessarily part of the school system”.
Alberti
Despite all
differences, also “Alberti’s notion of composition is neither derived from, or
is it concerned with, the picture as an entity. It is derived from the
observation of a single, individual object in nature and the way in which this
object is visually made up of its surfaces. At its most basic level,
composition is the activity of putting a thing together, and in this respect
Alberti may well reflect the traditional usage of the term in the workshops as
suggested by Cennino.”
Puttfarken also
sees a parallel with Cennino, when Alberti analyses the definition of painting
as made up of circumscription, composition and reception of light.
“Circumscription, defined in its own right, is presented as a means of accurate
imitation, based on precise observation. Composition, while employing drawing
as its means goes beyond it in so far as it is a constructive or creative
activity.(…)”
Nevertheless,
Alberti has a more complex theory of composition. “When Alberti moves on from
circumscription to composition, he explicitly advances from imitation to
construction. (…) composition is the main area of artistic choice, the area
where the artist has to decide and construct, rather than imitate. (…)
Composition, perhaps even more than perspective, allows Alberti to justify the
status of painting as a liberal art. Composition depends on the artist’s
knowledge of the human body, its proportions, its movements and expressions of
emotions, of the way in which the interaction of bodies can convey meaning, and
it also depends on his ”
This does not
exclude – however – that Alberti – as well as other Quattrocento art scholars -
failed to talk about the overall effects of pictures. There are two reasons why
Quattrocento art theorists could not do it. The first is the central role of
the human body, the second perspective.
First, in
Alberti’s theory the human body is “the paradigm of order and composition (…) a
measure of perfection”. In functional terms, Alberti accepts that more bodies
can create complex figures performing a joint action (which is called “historia, as a sum of all bodies,
objects, etc.”) following “ordering principles [like] appropriateness of
movements, both physical and mental, to the overall action aiming at a clear
exposition of its meaning, and variety of movement, aiming at pleasure”.
However, in more ontological terms – writes Puttfarken – “there is, for our
Renaissance critics, no way of transcending the individual body. Two or more
bodies do not from a greater whole. (…)”.
Second,
perspective is considered by Alberti in the first book of the De Pictura: it is
an a priori technical requirement of
art, not a part of it. And still, Puttfarken finds that perspective (and in
particular the traditional central perspective) “had compositional effects (…),
recognised and practised by artists from an early date.” This “may have helped
to render superfluous a separate theory of pictorial order and composition.”
Indeed, Alberti himself – referring to the techniques to be used in order to
construct perspective – writes: “This method of dividing up the pavement
pertains especially to that part of painting which, when we come to it, we
shall call composition.”
However, also in
this case, it would be wrong to consider perspective – in Alberti’s definition
– as a component of modern composition. Simplifying Puttfarken complex
elaboration, there are two ways to construe the visual relation between the
painting and the viewer. One is identifying the “central (…) visual ray that
meets a surface at right angle”: this is the basis of Alberti’s theory of
visual pyramid. The other one is the central ray which is not perpendicular to
the surface, but to the eye of the viewer: this is real modern concept, where
the viewer is at the centre of the composition. In other terms, Alberti
theory’s is more related to the discussion of “an original single surfaces, a
single overall visual pyramid, a single, immovable and permanently fixed
centric ray and viewing distance”, in other terms “a single glance”. That
single glance is imposed by the painter, and does not permit the viewer to
interact actively.
Summing up,
Puttfarken refers to Baxandall’s view on Leon Battista Alberti in “Giotto and
the Orators”, as inventor of the composition: “my disagreement with Baxandall
on this issue is a marginal one, yet perhaps not unimportant”.
It is
interesting to see how different from Puttfarken’s arguments are the views
developed by the scholars who edited the available versions in French of De Pictura. For Jean Louis Schefer, who
published in 1992 the first French edition since the one of Claudius Popelin in
1868, the De Pictura offers to
painters a theoretic frame which is dominated by the conversion of visual art
into space through perspective. Schefer considers Alberti ’s crucial concept of
historia as being conceptual part of
perspective (and not - the other way round – perspective as an external
scientific discipline, external to the concept of pictorial
composition/narrative), and refers therefore to the
projection of the spectator into the space of the painting (which is also the
space of the invention). This active interaction is exactly what Puttfarken considers
missing in Alberti’s composition. Thomas Golsenne and Bertrand Prevost, who
edited a new version in 2004, do not only consider Alberti as the founder of
the concept of ‘representation’, based on the concept of ‘historia’, but they contrast it with the previous concept of Middle
Age (which they call, using a neologism they created, as ‘presentification’).
They explain that Alberti’s representation has a different semiotic position
than previous religious art. The classical Christian image in sacred art always
pre-exists to the spectator (who is first of all a devote person), and has its
power from religion. For Alberti, the pictorial representation is a pure
representation, which absolutely necessitates a relation with a viewer. Referring to Michael Foucault, they explain
that Alberti’s historia has a double
meaning: on the one hand it consists of the facts which are displayed in the
painting and on the other hand it is the action of assigning a pictorial
meaning to those facts. Thanks to the fundamental concept of ‘representation’,
the De Pictura – conclude Golsenne
and Prevost – transforms the position of the viewer in “an element absolutely
necessary to the system of new painting. (…) The representation of painting
does not exist as representation if not as an act of recognition by the
spectators”.
Bibliography
Alberti, Leon Battista – De la Peinture - De Pictura (1435), Traduction par
Jean Louis Schefer, Paris, Macula, Dédale, 1992 – Owned by this library
Alberti, Leon Battista – De Pictura. Traduit du Latin et présenté par Danielle Sonnier, Pris, Édition Allia,
2010 - Owned by this library
Alberti,
Leon Battista - De Pictura (Redazione volgare), edited by Lucia Bertolini,
Firenze, Polistampa, 2011 (Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Leon Battista
Alberti. Trattatistica d’arte 1.1) – Owned by this library
Alberti, Leon Battista – La Peinture. Texte latin, traduction française,
version italienne. Édition de Thomas Golsenne et Bertrand Prévost, revue par
Yves Hersant. Paris, Seuil, 2006 – Owned
by this library
Alberti, Leon
Battista - On Painting, Introduction and translation by Cecil Grayson, Penguin
Books, revised edition, New York, 2004 – Owned
by this library
Aronberg Lavin,
Marilyn, The Place of Narrative, Mural Decoration in Italian Churches, Chicago,
1990.
Aronberg Lavin, Mailyn - Un nuovo metodo per lo studio della pittura murale;
il problema dell’ordine narrativo (A new
method to study mural painting: the problem of narrative order), in: Storia
dell’Arte 77, 1993, 115-122.
Baxandall, Michael
- Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the
Discovery of Pictorial Composition, 1350-1450, Oxford-Warburg studies, 1986
See: http://books.google.de/books?id=1sviuSWnAZEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Michael+Baxandall%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=mQFQU8aDOMm8ygPfs4G4Dw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bek, Lise – Voti frateschi, virtù di
umanista e regole di pittore. Cennino Cennini sub specie Albertiana, in
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, 1971, pp. 64-106. Owned by this library (in the form of a pdf file
kindly provided by the Accademia di Danimarca in Rome).
Blakeslee, David
– A Journey through the Eclipse Series:
Roberto Rossellini’s The Age of Cosimo de’ Medici, 25 May 2011. See: http://criterioncast.com/news/a-journey-through-the-eclipse-series-roberto-rossellinis-the-age-of-the-medici/
Boskovits, Miklós - Cennino Cennini – pittore nonconformista, in : Mitteilungen
des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, Vol. 17, N. 2/3, pp. 201-222, Published
by: Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz. See: www.jstor.org/stable/27652330
Burckhardt, Jacob - La civiltà del Rinascimento in Italia, Firenze, Sansoni,
1952 - Owned by this library
Burckhardt, Jacob - Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, Frankfurt am
Main, Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1989 - Owned
by this library
Burckhardt, Jacob – La Civiltà del Rinascimento in Italia - Un tentativo di
interpretazione, edited by Maurizio Ghelardi, Torino, Nino Aragno, 2006.
Cennini, Cennino – Il libro dell’arte, edited by Fabio Frezzato, Vicenza,
Neri Pozza Editore, 2009.
Di Stefano, Elisabetta – L’altro sapere. Bello, Arte, Immagine in Leon
Battista Alberti, Palermo, Centro Internazionale Studi di Estetica, 2000 – See:
http://www.unipa.it/~estetica/download/DiStefano_Alberti.pdf
Di Stefano, Elisabetta - Leon Battista Alberti e il doctus artifex (Leon Battista Alberti and the cultivated
artist), in Mecenati, artisti e pubblico nel Rinascimento (Sponsors, artists and public in Renaissance),
Pienza, 2009. See: https://www.academia.edu/990501/Leon_Battista_Alberti_e_il_doctus_artifex_
Edgerton, Samuel
Jr – Alberti‘s Colour Theory: A Mediaeval Bottle without Renaissance Wine, in: Journal
of the Warburg and Courthald Institute, Vol. 32, 1969, pp. 109-134 See: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/750609?uid=3737528&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103995810787
Fantasie und Handwerk. Cennino Cennini und die Tradition der toskanischen
Malerei von Giotto bis Lorenzo Monaco (Phantasy and Handwork. Cennino Cennini and the tradition of Tuscan painting between Giotto
and Lorenzo Monaco), Gemäldegalarie Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Hirmer Publishers,
2008 Owned by this library.
Field, Judith –
The Invention of Infinity. Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 1977 See:
Flemming, Willi
– Die Begründung der modernen Ästetik und Kunstwissenschaft durch Leon Battista
Alberti (The foundation of modern
Aesthetics and Art Science by Leon Battista Alberti), Teubner, Leipzig and
Berlin, 1916 (reprint from the collections of the University of California
Libraries, 2014 – Owned by this library)
Garin, Eurgenio - Leon Battista Alberti, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore,
2013 - Owned by this library.
Gombrich, Ernst
- Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, New
York, Pantheon Books, 1960 See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/158411455/E-H-Gombrich-Art-and-Illusion-1984
Ilg, Albert - Das Buch von der Kunst oder Tractat der Malerei des CenninoCennini da Colle di Valdelsa, Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik
des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Volume 1), Wien, Braumüller, 1871.
Kuhn, Rudolf - Alberti`s Lehre über die Komposition als die Kunst in der
Malerei (Alberti’s doctrine on
composition as the art in painting). In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Vol.
28, 1984, pp. 123-178. Available online at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4690/
Kuhn, Rudolf - Cennino Cennini. Sein Verständnis dessen, was die Kunst in
der Malerei sei, und seine Lehre vom Entwurfs- und vom Werkprozeß (Cennino Cennini – His understanding of what
is art in painting, and his doctrine on draft and implementation processes).
In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Vol. 36, 1991, pp.
104-153. Available online at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4689/
Kuhn, Rudolf – Erfindung und Komposition in der Monumentalen Zyklischen
Historien Malerei des 14. Und 15. Jahrhundert in
Italien (Invention and composition in the
cyclical monumental history painting of 14th and 15th century in Italy),
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 2000. Second, revised edition, dated 2005,
available online at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4691/1/Kuhn_Rudolf_4691.pdf
Kuhn, Rudolf - Komposition und Rhythmus. Beiträge zur Neubegründung einer
historischen Kompositionslehre (Composition and rythm. Contributions to
re-foundation of an historical doctrine of composition), Berlin, New York, de Gruyter, 1980. Revised version, available
online at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4684/
Kuhn, Rudolf –
On Composition as Method and Topic. Studies on the work of L.B.Alberti,
Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Picasso, Bernini and Ignaz Gunther.
Tel Aviv Lectures, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 2000. Owned by this library.
Lillie, Amanda -
Constructing the Picture, in 'Building the Picture: Architecture in Italian
Renaissance Painting', The National Gallery, London, published online 2014.
See: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/research/exhibition-catalogues/building-the-picture/constructing-the-picture/composing-the-image
Pictorial
Composition from Mediaeval to Modern Art,
Edited by Paul Taylor and François Quiviger, The Warburg Institute,
London – Nino Aragno Editore, Turin, 2001 – Owned
by this library.
Pfisterer,
Ulrich, Cennino Cennini und die Idee des Kustliebhabers (Cennino Cennini and the Idea of the art lover), in “Grammatik der
Kunstgeschichte: Sprachproblem und Regelwerk im “Bild-Diskurs” (Grammar of Art
History: Language Problems and Rulebook in the “Art Discussion”), Emsdetten,
2008, pp. 95-117 See:
Rossellini,
Roberto - The Age of Cosimo de’ Medici (Part Three – Leon Battista Alberti, the
Humanism), TV Series, Rai, January 1973 3
CDS owned by this library in the Italian version.
Schlosser, Julius ¬von¬: Materialien zur Quellenkunde der Kunstgeschichte -
1. – Mittelalter, Wien: Hoelder, 1914 See: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/schlosser1914heft1
Schlosser, Julius ¬von¬: Materialien zur Quellenkunde der Kunstgeschichte -
2. – Frührenaissance, Wien: Hölder, 1915 See: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/schlosser1915heft2
Schlosser, Julius von, Die Kunstliteratur: ein Handbuch zur Quellenkunde
der neueren Kunstgeschichte, Wien, Kunstverlag Anton Schroll & Co, 1924 Owned by this library. See also: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/schlosser1924
Schlosser, Julius von - Ein Kunstlerproblem der Renaissance: L. B. Alberti,
Wien, Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1929 – Owned
by this library.
Troncelliti,
Latifah – The Two Parallel Realities of Alberti and Cennini. The Power of
Writing and the Visual Arts in the Italian Quattrocento, Lewiston, Edwin Mellin
Press, 2004 Owned by this library.
Venturi, Lionello – La critica d’arte alla fine del Trecento (Filippo
Villani e Cennino Cennini), in: L’Arte, Rivista di Storia Medievale e Moderna,
No. 4, 1925, pp. 233-244. See: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/arte1925/0261?sid=4e7a93ea0aae0979cfd48cee654f4b71
Vuilleumier Florence, Leon Battista
Alberti - De la peinture, in: Revue de l'Art, 1993, Volume 99, pp. 84-85.
Wright
Edward - Il De pictura di Leon Battista Alberti e i suoi lettori (1435-1600).
Firenze, Leo S. Olschki, 2010 – Owned by this library.
Thank you so much! Giovanni Mazzaferro
RispondiElimina