Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Giulio Mancini
Considerazioni sulla pittura
[Considerations on Painting]
Published for the first time by Adriana Marucchi with a commentary by Luigi Salerno
Two volumes, Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1956-1957
Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part Two
 |
| Caravaggio, Supper at Emmaus, 1601, London, National Gallery Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Genres of Painting
In the
breakdown of paintings by genre, Mancini presents a hierarchy which is not new;
he sees on the top the history painting, then the portrait and finally the
landscape. He however includes some surprise and some complications. There are,
for example, two types of portraits: the simple one, without 'any action and expression of affection',
and the one instead with 'expression of
affection'. The purpose of the former is purely mimetic: "And this expresses only the size, proportion
and likeness of the thing that imitates, with the colour and any other feature
which characterizes the portrayed" (Vol. I, p. 115): therefore, while
it is necessary to consider, understand and improve nature, nothing essential is
due in the case of the 'simple' portrait, where what matters is not the ideal
aspect, but the merely real appearance. It is, in some way (as Salerno writes
in his commentary) the revenge of the 'ugly' (Mancini wants a scarred
individual to be represented with his scar), which exists from art through the
door of ideal beauty and comes back through the window of the portrait ‘without expression of affection'. I need
however to warn the reader about an immediately following caveat: to understand
whether a 'simple' portrait has been well or wrongly done, what counts is the
judgment of the 'ignorant' people: if they like it, then the portrait is great.
In fact, people who are not expert of drawing can only make judgments on purely
realistic aspects, and are incapable of understanding the nobility of painting.
I think it
is important to re-read the lines that Mancini dedicated to history painting. I
am apologizing to our more demanding readers, if I will do it by paraphrasing
the original text and simplify it to adapt it to a more modern language. History
painting constitutes the founding nucleus of Mancini’s aesthetics (pp. 117):
"Here follows the history, which is
a representation of an action done by several people; all the figures, either
in one way or another, serve and contribute to the history [...]. First of all, in the history one has to
consider the location or place where it took place, the period in which it was
made, the light, the main figure(s) (whether one or more), and those figures
which are subordinate to the former, for which one must consider the
likelihood, the affection, the dressing, the decorum and the grace. All of this
has to be combined, in order to express and represent the action of whatever
figure is part of the story, in a way that, when taking into account the main
figure(s) (whether one or more), this must be such that (with respect to the
location and place), the main figure is immediately recognized at a first sight
as the chief-figure of the action, precisely expressed and painted".
Mancini does not invent anything. He states that history painting (which – I am
remembering it for those who might be in doubt - in his days was basically a
sacred art painting) must be clear and immediately recognizable in the action
represented by those who see it. And, on the basis of the appropriateness of
the figures (their expression, their dressing, their functionality to main
action), Mancini defines later on the beauty, the grace, the dignity, the proportion
and so on.
I am stressing
this point because, when it comes to Mancini, one tends to say that he was a
precursor, the first to codify art collecting, and a man who in many ways
surpassed mannerism (think of the serpentine line) and laid the foundations for
the theory of ideal beauty that would pervade the Baroque classicism of the
seventeenth century. All true. However, in all honesty, I prefer to line up
with Luigi Salerno and talk about a transition man, a man who did not invent
anything, and not because he had a mannerist style, but because it seems clear
that many of the concepts expressed in his book are derived directly from the precepts
of the Counterreformation. I will try to examine some of them.
 |
| Caravaggio, Judith beheading Holofernes, 1602, Rome, Palazzo Barberini Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Mancini and the Counterreformation
I would
like to state it immediately: In my view the Considerations on Painting are very reminiscent of the Discourse on Sacred and Profane images by Cardinal Gabriele Paleotti (1582), which Mancini never mentioned, and
probably never read. The fact remains that Paleotti’s Discourse may have created the cultural climate on which Mancini based
himself (although he distanced himself from it, whenever he felt it needed).
First of all, there is no doubt that the (as well known, incomplete) Discourse by Paleotti shares the same taxonomic
structure with the Considerations: in
Paleotti’s case, it is about reviewing the sacred images, pointing out those which
are represented incorrectly and censoring them. The first criterion to which
one adheres, in this examination, is that of the plausible representation;
Mancini does nothing but repeating it in his definition of history painting. As
another key element, the sacred representation must be clear and readily
understandable to the faithful; once again, a concept largely reproduced by the
Sienese scholar. All of this is due, because the image wields an immense power on
anyone who looks at it: it can 'delight,
teach and move', can push to perform good deeds and commit unjust actions, can
save or may condemn the viewer. When Mancini, dwelling on the way to place the
paintings, says that they should be placed in different places "according to the habits and feelings they
can arouse, when they are regarded" (Vol. I, p. 142), he says exactly
the same thing. All his references to the controversy whether the crucified Christ
should be represented with three or four nails, to the Turin Shroud or the miraculous
images are reflections of the Counter-Reformation doctrine. These are the same references
that we can find also in the world of Armenini, Lomazzo, Romano Alberti and in
the Dicerie sacre (Sacred Dialogues)
by Giovan Battista Marino (1614). Christ himself is included in the list of
Mancini’s painters, just like Giotto or Raphael.
 |
| Annibale Carracci, Assumption of the Virgin, 1600, Rome, Santa Maria del Popolo, Cerasi Chapel Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Luckily,
albeit starting from a theological basis which is in fact the same for all the
treatises of late '500 and early '600 (and that in itself does not contain any
rejection of mannerism in favour of classicism), Mancini is a true 'amateur' of
art, and expresses his passion (today recognized as also having been of a
commercial nature) condemning the destruction of works of art and finding that even
the most execrable ones, in moral terms, have their use: "Therefore, it has been saintly banned by
edict to make public the painting which have not yet been considered first by the
superiors; however, in this respect I do not like the excessive inflexibility
which led Savonarola to burn so many paintings in Florence. [...] In fact, here in Rome, the Churches preserve
testimonials of the Gentiles; ... moreover, if you burned ancient paintings
that are perfect, modern painters could not learn to make any image for our
religion... For this reason, Pius V [editor's note: the Pope of the Counterreformation
par excellence, elected in 1566] ... left ancient deities in the Vatican
Palace, even if with some lasciviousness" (p. 142). And when Mancini is
confronted with the thorniest cases (those of lascivious images), he does not
hesitate to bring up even his medical experience to justify their utility.
Speaking, in fact, of such images and how to place them in the collector's
home, Mancini does not hesitate to write: "Similar lascivious paintings are well placed in such places where one
lingers with the wife, because their vision helps greatly to the excitement and
to make beautiful, healthy, and strong children... because the two parents, by
looking at the same picture burn a similar constitution into their seed, which
is impressed by the view of that object and figure" (p. 143). Once
again, we are returning to the power of the image; while for Paleotti this argument
was essential to reject lascivious images, here Mancini assigns to these works
the power to give birth to healthy and beautiful children. Mancini uses arguments
of the Counterreformation, but manipulates them to justify exactly those
objects that were the subject of religious darts. This is, I think, the real
importance of thoroughly reading the Considerations
on painting, and of not just mentioning the most famous extracts (the anecdotes
on Caravaggio, on Annibale Carracci and similar issues). Mancini is ready to
welcome and accept all kinds of pictures, as works of art, and as a collector
of the same. Hence the need to carry out a classification of all art makers who
have worked or work in Rome (this is the end of the established practice of
limiting the biographies to dead authors, and explains why also the young
Poussin and Pietro da Cortona are quoted), also including foreign artists (a
daunting task, so much so that the author ends generically to indicate, within
the 'role' of painters, "many French and Flemish painters who come and go,
and for whom it is not possible to indicate precise information" (vol. I,
p. 97) [3].
 |
| Adam Elsheimer, Flight to Egypt, 1609, Munich, Alte Pinakothek Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Amateurs vs. painters
As known, Mancini’s
first concern (since the introduction) is to credit the 'amateur' as the only figure
being able to judge properly the work of art, contrary to the artist. The
distrust vis-à-vis the art maker is expressed not only about the judgments that
he expresses on his work, but also on that of his colleagues. Apart from issues of
greater or lesser personal involvement, the reason why an artist cannot be a
good judge is his 'fantasy'. The concept of 'fantasy' is not well defined (and,
by the way, Mancini was not a philosopher), but has to do with the 'furor dell'operare' (the work fury) which
is typical of the artist. Due to it, "the
fantasy is so entrenched and embedded ... that the intellect cannot be corrected
or adjusted, as it also happens with other emotional states which sometimes may
be overcome by craziness." Unknowingly, Mancini gave an
extraordinarily romantic and strikingly modern definition of being artists: who
would not easily refer to a definition of this type, for example, about Van
Gogh? His art, however, is so much fed of the 'ideal' beauty – which corrects
and improves the beauty of nature – that ends up lessening this romantic element.
The inadequacy of the ‘work fury’ is revealed in two phases. The first is that of
the project preparation, in which the iconographic program must be agreed upon with
the scholars (if not configured by them): "This is why Caro taught composition of history, decor and costume to
Taddeo Zuccari for the paintings in Caprarola, Aretino did it to Titian for the
painting of Fame to be made for his Majesty Charles V, and Bembo did it to
Raphael for the Vatican" (Vol. I, pp. 6-7). The second stage is,
precisely, that of judgment "because,
as it happens for everything else, also in painting one thing is to produce art
works and another one is to make use of them" (Vol. I, p. 6). And here
let us return to the example of lascivious paintings, of which we spoke
earlier: once paintings have been made, the judgment implies that one knows in
what context to propose them; what is needed, therefore, is ‘intelletto’ (intellect). The intellect
is precisely the feature of the 'amateur', a man 'who knows how to draw' (in my opinion, this simply means that he
knows about drawing in general) but who does not necessarily have to use the
brush: "It is just sufficient to
have developed a good judgment, established by seeing more paintings, either by
themselves or with the judgement of more experts, and then to assess the others
in terms of similitude, equality or inequality" (p. 7). According to Luigi
Salerno (and one can only agree with it) a claim of this kind opens the door to
a content-reading of art works (interpretation of decorum and morality of the
content) and not to a stylistic reading of them. It opens therefore the door to
a trend that will characterise the following centuries. It should be said,
though, that if these are the theoretical statements of Mancini, the rest of
the treatise (for example, with the identification of the prevailing styles in
the late sixteenth century) seems somehow to disprove or at least to resize
them strongly. All in all, the Sienese physician seems just to be looking for
the greatest possible number of arguments that legitimize his figure as
'amateur'.
 |
| Paul Brill, View of the Forum Romanum with the Columns of the Castor and Pollux Temple and the Hadrian Basilica, 1600, Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Rules to buy, sell and store paintings
The section
which Adriana Marucchi identified as the tenth chapter of the first part of the
work (i.e. Regole per comprare, collocare
e conservare le pitture - Rules to buy, sell and store paintings) is
undoubtedly one of aspects that aroused the greatest interest of the scholars. Since
many things are well known, I would like to recall only the aspects dedicated
to where to place art works. The inspiring criterion, once again, is that the
works should be arranged "according
to the habits and feelings which they can arouse, when they are regarded"
(Vol. I, p. 142). That said, it is obvious that Mancini takes as reference the
reality of the great Roman palaces. The first recommendation relates to
drawings and prints: "Make distinct
books of hand drawings, according to their contents, time, size of sheet,
nations and mode of the designs, whether they are in pen, pencil and charcoal, watercolour,
chiaroscuro, or oil tints; do the same for etchings; and be ready to show them
and make sure those regarding the books would enjoy them with taste" (p.
143). The seventeenth-century Rome marks the triumph of prints and drawings; I would
like to mention for instance the so-called 'Paper museum' by Cassiano dal Pozzo (albeit
it followed, in most parts, the time of Mancini’s words).
 |
| Lavinia Fontana, Self-portrait at the Clavichord with a Servant, 1577, Rome, Academy of S. Luke Source: Wikimedia Commons |
As for the
paintings, the fundamental distinction is between those to be exhibited in
'public' places, i.e. to locations to which guests may have access, and private
apartments. We already mentioned the lascivious paintings, which would find
their perfect accommodation in places where the 'Prince' entertains his wife; these
are however different places - it should be made clear - from the actual bedrooms,
which were due to contain only the images of Christ, the Virgin and the saints.
Antique vases, fragments of frescoes, and intarsia are advisable in workrooms.
Paintings 'of civil action, or peace or
war' (i.e. history paintings with profane subjects) should be placed in the
halls and in the antechambers of the spaces where guests are received; the same
applies to the portraits of popes, cardinals, kings and emperors. These same
environments can host works with a symbolic subject, when they are mostly intended
to consecrate the majesty of the family, such as 'imprese' and emblems. Galleries
(they were nothing else but passing places) should at best host landscapes and
cosmographies (obviously, Mancini knew the Gallery
of maps in the Vatican). For everything else, if there was enough room,
"you can make of a gallery a
comfortable place ... in which you would place all the paintings that cannot be
hosted in the rooms and bedrooms, and place them according to the materials,
the colours, the time in which they were made and the school according to which
were conducted" (p. 144). Here Mancini seems to propose a double
solution to display the art works: first, to respects the chronological order
of the works, and within that order, a hierarchy according to schools and
genres: "Since we are distinguishing
in paintings the resurgent, good, perfect, and declining centuries, once you
have identified the sites where to hang the specific paintings, you would first
of all place the oldest, respecting the possible affordable lights and necessary
spaces for the sizes of paintings, and among these you would first place the
foreign painters, then the Lombard ones, then the Tuscans and Romans, because
in this way the viewer can more easily see and enjoy and, after having seen and
enjoyed, keep in memory the sighted paintings". Then he changes his
mind, or rather proposes an alternative solution, which he seems to prefer:
"But I would not like that [...] you
would gather together the same school and manner [...], but I wish you would
alternate them with other manners and schools of the same century, because in
this way they will delight more the viewers because of their variety" (p.
145). Both solutions, in the last instance, seem to have in mind more the
fruition of the works by the visiting public that the one by the owner; both
are developed in a chronological sense. The first, divided by schools, seems to
prefer educational purposes (offering those who observe the works a greater
ability to recall them); the second is instead designed to help create
'delight' through the 'variety' ensured by the rotation of schools, even if
always within the same century. It has been discussed, and it will be always
further discussed, whether these proposals were 'realistic': this requires
crossing information not only from the inventories, but also from the very few
documents that allow us to reconstruct the location of the paintings in the
ancient galleries of the sixteenth and seventeenth century in Rome. What is certain
is that Mancini advances proposals which were aiming at the viewers and, in
this sense, anticipates aspects which are related to the history of museums.
NOTES
[3] On the
issue of the presence of foreign artists in Rome (albeit at an earlier time than
Mancini) see Nicole Dacos, Viaggio a Roma. I pittori europei nel ‘500 (Journey
to Rome. The European painters in the '500), Milan, Jaca Book, 2012.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento