Chiara Marin, [Women's Art. For a female 'Kunstliteratur' in Nineteenth Century Italy]

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Chiara Marin
L’arte delle donne.
Per una Kunstliteratur al femminile nell’Italia dell’Ottocento
[Women's Art. For a Female Kunstliteratur in Nineteenth Century Italy]

Limena, Libreriauniversitaria.it, 2013

Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Portrait of Isabella Teotochi Albrizzi, 1792
Source: Wikimedia Commons

I have no difficulty in admitting that I started reading this book with great scepticism. Frankly speaking, I thought it was not useful to make a gender analysis in the frame of art literature studies, though, my curiosity was great, especially taking into account that studies of this type have now gained their dignity within art criticism, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries.

Perhaps for this reason, I was favourably surprised. Starting from the authoress’initial statement, where she makes clear her purpose: to investigate whether there is (or rather, whether there was) a different way of seeing things related to art making, precisely from a female angle; and, if this was the case, whether there also was a ‘different’ way in communicating that perspective, since here we have precisely to do with art literature, i.e. with the writings of authoresses who, for diverse reasons, took care of works of art, artists and the art world. The temporal analysis is ‘limited’ to the nineteenth century. The use of inverted commas is a must, because it was an extraordinarily long time span, whose multiplicity of art expressions is still widely underestimated by critics, lasting from the triumph of neo-classicism at the beginning of the century to positivist, symbolist and proto-nationalist approaches of the late nineteenth century. If there is a remaining regret at the end of reading, it is that the anthologized pieces have been compressed into just 180 pages, while, as a simple term of comparison, the main Italian anthologies devoted to the nineteenth century are articulated on thousands of pages [1]. I therefore regret that in many situations the reader must be content with a few lines only, at best two or three pages, of each authoress. This also was a precise editorial choice of the curator, who defines her work as a "first plowing of land" (and in fact the finality of the work – addressed to university teaching – is evident from the name of the publisher). It should be added that, once again by explicit choice, Chiara Marin, the curator, prefers to privilege the polyphony of her anthology, giving space to as many voices as possible and limiting (except in exceptional cases) each author’s testimony to one excerpt only. As a consequence, the work inevitably appears somewhat discontinuous in the quality of writings; moreover, I would love to know a lot more about certain figures, such as Maria Alinda Bonacci Brunamonti, Evelyn, Luigia Codemo, Neera, especially because - and I have no difficulty in admitting it – I learnt about their existence on this occasion for the first time.

Anna Zuccari Radius, aka "Neera"
Source: Wikimedia Commons

But - as I said – Ms. Marin’s concept is different, and more challenging. The question is whether there are common grounds that can in some way serve as a minimum common denominator for all the authoresses considered. In this respect, the work reports situations of great interest together with other conclusions which I personally do not agree with, provided that conclusions are always attempted in a balanced and polite way, constantly starting from the texts, and without preconceived ideas manifesting a priori biases. By way of example, I am quoting a consideration that did not convince me completely: "The call to support historical analysis through a constant and direct check of the works of art is a recurring theme in the female interventions that followed over the century, of course with different tones according to the different preparation of the individual authoress and the respective terms of reference, and can perhaps be referred to as a gender-related characteristic"(p. 45).

Marianna Candidi Dionigi, Landscape, about 1798
Source: Wikimedia Commons

On the other hand, it is undeniable that there are common elements between the various authoresses, starting with their social backgrounds: all or almost all of them (especially at the beginning of the century) were of aristocratic extraction; all or almost all of them were educated by private tutors or within colleges, with a background on literature, which blends well with art interests. We can imagine that art was the subject of brilliant discussions at the beginning of century, for example in the famous salon of Isabella Teotochi Albrizzi. On certain occasions, a noble extraction was felt by the authoresses themselves as insufficient to ensure the quality of their writings, which often included preliminary modesty statements which even appear excessive; or - as it is the case of Marianna Candidi conjugated Dionigi, the Roman noblewoman who lived at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth century – the authoresses resorted to a kind of "external certification." Thus, for example, her 1816 Precetti elementari sulla pittura de’ paesi, (i.e. Elementary precepts on painting of landscapes) (one of those works on which I would really like to know more, since she dwelled on landscape painting at the time of triumph for historical painting) are preceded by a certificate of the illustrious Academy of St. Luke stating that "the volume is written with erudition, clarity, and full understanding of art" (p. 127, note 11).

Clearly, there is a problem related to the recognition of the value of their writings and, more generally, the representation of women's role in society. I think there are a few revealing sentences about it. One is by Fulvia (born as Fulvia Rachele Saporiti) in an article printed in the journal Vita intima (Intimate Life), where she comments the Brera Exposition of 1891. She was commenting on the public's right to make its own judgment about the works of art and wrote: "And even at the cost of putting together some platitude, we have, as public, the right and freedom to vote. Let us use it..." (p. 165). I may be wrong, but since these words are written by a woman who clearly had a good knowledge of English (I understand that, among others, she translated the Uncle Tom's Cabin), they seem to me a statement revealing the knowledge (and I would say the sharing) of the British suffragette movement.

Domenico Morelli, The temptations of St. Anthony, 1878, Rome, GNAM
See: Princess Maria Della Rocca. Modern Art in Italy, p. 98
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes, the recognition of their role is obtained through merits which were evidently considered extraordinary. While these were individual cases, they should not be underestimated, however. It is the case, I think, of Maria Alinda Bonacci Brunamonti, the poetess, but above all the patriot (patriotism was a common element in many of the authoresses, but one could easily argue that the same just happened among men). Beyond her interests for art, Bonacci composed during the Second War of Independence verses of a fervent patriotism that "justified her exceptional admission to voting for the confirmation plebiscite on the annexation of the Marches and Umbria to the Piedmont" (p . 110 n. 40).

More generally, I can say, following Marin’s view, that the role of women was greatly increased with the development of periodical press, and in particular of the periodical press dedicated to a female audience. It is a type of publications that grew in the early nineteenth century, and blossomed in the second half of the century, when a significant (high-bourgeois based) market was born and reached a sufficient size to justify financial investment in the sector. All writings given in the fifth section of this anthology, but actually also many others presented in the first four ones, are articles in the periodical press. I absolutely agree with Marin when she says that the future development of criticism in this area will probably depend on a systematic analysis of this type of journalism [2].

Lorenzo Delleani, Golden Autumn or A November Sunset, 1904
See: Mara Antelling, Contemporary Artists, p. 113
Source: http://www.artgate-cariplo.it/it/index.html

In this domain (but, to be honest, also in the monographs) prevails the pedagogical-didactic nature of writings, which really united the various women's experiences. Just read the brief biographical notes accompanying each excerpt to realize that many of the authoresses also produced texts for young people or for other women; to notice that they founded and directed schools to promote the basic culture of other girls; to understand, in short, that the pedagogical aims corresponded, first of all, to personal biographical experiences. An experience that, moreover, was recognised by the society as a whole, opening therefore a room for action and personal gratification.

All these aspects, when applied to the reality of art literature, often resulted in the abandonment (or the implicit rejection) of the erudite tones of many male scholars of the eighteenth-nineteenth century, whose guides or writings were often arid enumerations of names, works, and dates. Of course, I would exclude that the authoresses did not know this literature. Simply "the art of women" is aimed at a different audience, for which the subjective element of criticism or, more generally, the information provided matters much more. Less theory on art, less talk on ideal beauty (which, however - it's clear – still existed) and an increased importance of the role of the author as an intermediary between the reader and the interpretation of the art work in a subjective key. A general more narrative tone, which reflects the dual dimension of art criticism on the one hand, and the novel or tale on the other. Of course, over the decades, we are perfectly able to grasp the changes of taste: at the inception of the century, Isabella Teotochi Albrizzi praises Antonio Canova and his "sentimental" interpretation of neoclassicism, while in the reports of the exhibitions from the late nineteenth-century the references are to the symbolism of Ferdinand Hodler and Arnold Böcklin. It also possible to captures the aspiration to a truly national revival of art, well described in the report of Malaspina Madonnina on the reasons that lead to the 1883 International Exposure of Rome (p. 156).

Jan Mateiko, The Prussian Homage, 1882, National Museum of Krakow
See: Madonnina Malaspina, The International Exhibition of Fine Arts, p. 156
Source: Wikimedia Commons

There are, of course, special features: one of them (in fact, we have already introduced a reference to it in the first lines of this review) was the use of pseudonyms, more and more spread with time. They range from Princess Maria Della Rocca, which actually was Maria Embden-Heine (1835-1908), granddaughter of the German poet, to Neera (Anna Radius Zuccari (1846-1918)), one of the founders of the journal Vita intima (Intimate Life) (1890), author of short stories, but also friend of Segantini, Pelizza da Volpedo and Gaetano Previati (p. 107); and again Mara Antelling (Anna Piccoli Menegazzi, 1854-1904); Evelyn (i.e. the French Evelyn de la Touche (1855-1920), who married Pietro dei Franceschi Marini, descendant of Piero della Francesca, and wrote an informed biography of the painter from Sansepolcro); a still to date anonymous Ms Arrighetta, who writes an article on the Nativity scenes through the centuries on the Rivista della moda (The journal of fashion) in 1898, highlighting the medieval ones for their spirituality and rejecting the Renaissance ones because they lost their religious intimacy; Aldea (i.e. Ida Finzi, 1867-1946); Fulvia (Fulvia Rachel Saporiti, 1870-1944); Junior (and I really believe that Matilde Serao (1856-1927), who hid behind it, does not need any introduction); Countess Lara (Evelina Cattermole, 1849-1896); and finally Jolanda (Maria Majocchi Plattis, 1864-1917). Finally, those who write with male pseudonyms are also not missing and here is perhaps appropriate to quote the novelist Beatrice Speraz, 1839-1923 (her nome de plume was Bruno Sperani) and Memini (Ines Castellani Fantoni Benaglio, 1849-1899). Using pseudonyms was a practice in use throughout Europe for women (in Victorian times the articles, which were written by women in English periodicals, were either anonymous or were signed with pseudonyms); it became a widespread fashion at the end of the century, and it is perhaps a real banality (but I would like to mention it nevertheless) to say that it is from this practice that originated even the most popular of them, i.e. Liala (a pseudonym invented for her by Gabriele D'Annunzio).

How should I conclude? While I started my reading with some scepticism, I ended up realizing that Chiara Marin’s anthology should not be judged by its limitations and defects, which nevertheless exist [3], but it should be appreciated for the material and the ideas proposed, material and ideas that would deserve a more complete research on individual personalities presented in the text. The curator, so to speak, has ‘tilled the soil’. We are looking forward to the harvest time in full confidence.

NOTES

[1] See about this: Paola Barocchi, Storia moderna dell’arte in Italia, Volume I. Dai neoclassici ai puristi. Manifesti polemiche documenti (Modern history of art in Italy, Volume I. From the neoclassical to the purists. Manifestos, controversies, documents), Torino, Einaudi, 1998 and Paola Barocchi, Storia moderna dell’arte in Italia. Volume II. Dalla pittura di storia alla storia della pittura (Modern history of art in Italy. Volume II. From history painting to the history of painting), curated by Barbara Cinelli, Milan, Electa, 2009 (around 1300 pages); as well as Scritti d’arte del primo Ottocento (Art writings of the early nineteenth century), curated by Fernando Mazzocca, Milan-Naples, Riccardo Riccardi, 1998 (2200 pages).

[2] It should also be remembered that Chiara Marin, together with Franco Bernabei, curated the publication of Critica d’arte nelle riviste lombardo-venete, 1820-1860, (Art Criticism in the Lombard-Venetian journals, from 1820 to 1860), Treviso, Canova, 2007.

[3] The most obvious weakness, in publishing terms, is the mix-up of the original notes about the anthologized excerpts and the notes of the curator.