Paolo Pino. Dialogo di pittura [Dialogue on Painting], edited by Susanna Falabella. Part One

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Paolo Pino
Dialogo di pittura [Dialogue on Painting]
Edited by Susanna Falabella

Rome, Lithos, 2000

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part One

Paolo Pino, Portrait of a collectionist (or of a sculptor?), Chambéry, Musée d'Art et d'Histoire
Source: culture.gouv.fr

The work's publishing success

The Dialogo di Pittura di Messer Paolo Pino nuovamente dato in luce (The anew-discovered Dialogue on Painting by Mr Paolo Pino) was published by Paulo Gherardo in Venice in 1548. It is one of those texts for which it is important to read again, at least from time to time, the original. Why it is so? The issue is that Pino’s treatise is often cited along with the dialogue (called Aretino) by Lodovico Dolce, published in 1557. About them, it has been often said that they both defined the core specificity of Venetian art, compared to the first edition of Vasari's Lives (1550) (a few years before, in the case o f Pino and a few years later, in the case of Dolce). Inevitably, therefore, the two works are brought together in a stream of search for a Venetian identity, as opposed to Tuscany. It is indeed often mentioned that Pino’s final list of 'integer' painters (i.e. those who come closer to the ideal artist) also included "the young Giorgio [Vasari] from Arezzo, who, besides being prosing in terms of his qualities in art, is likewise also highly virtuous, and is the one who, as a true son of painting, combined and collected all the lives and works of most famous painters in a candidly written book"(pp. 131-132). The additional question is therefore often discussed whether Pino ever had the opportunity to read a preview of some parts of the Lives or whether he was informed through third parties (and the suspects hereof are not lacking) of the endeavour that Vasari was completing. That said, and taking into account other peculiarities of the text (for example the anecdote concerning Giorgione and his (lost) St. George painting, prepared in such a way that with a game of mirrors it was possible to see every side of the figure on the canvas), the opinion expressed on the Dialogue was for sure not exciting. It was considered a confused work, which owed much (often citing him) to Leon Battista Alberti and his De Pictura. As Pino was unable to propose the figure of an ideal painter, whose work he could propose as a model, he ended up taking an eclectic position (understood in a negative sense) codifying what would become a common place repeated at length in the following decades: "and if Titian and Michelangelo were one single body, or one could add the design of Michelangelo to the colour of Titian, he could be said to be a God of Painting" (p. 122). It should be noted here that the stereotype took shape when Michelangelo and Titian were still alive. 

Giovanni Gerolamo Savoldo, Saint Anthony abbot and Saint Paul hermit, about 1520, Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia
Source: Didier Descouens via Wikimedia Commons

Often mentioned in the histories of art criticism, Pino’s Dialogue had a particularly good season in the years after World War II. After a reprint of 1945 (with a note by Nicodemi), in 1946 Rodolfo and Anna Pallucchini published a critical edition (which I was unfortunately unable to consult). An edition by Ettore Camesasca was printed by Rizzoli publishers in 1954, but the real fortune of the work was given by its inclusion in the most famous Trattati d’arte del Cinquecento fra Manierismo e Controriforma (Art treaties in the sixteenth-century between Mannerism and Counterreformation) published in 1960 by Paola Barocchi [1]. In 2000 Susanna Falabella finalised this critical edition, which, in spite of the modest layout, is very valuable. The authoress' intent is to reconsider some aspects, valuing the personal contributions of Pino, also seen as a reflex of his (little known) artistic career. It should be added that Ms Falabella also widely drew from Mary Pardo’s PhD thesis, which is the only English version I am aware of, published in 1984 [2]. In the midst of all these bibliographical references, please allow me to be picky and to add a curiosity: the work was also published in 1948 by Antonio Fornari for Capriotti publishers in Rome. Amazingly, Fornari did neither knew the 1945 Milan facsimile edition nor 1946 Pallucchini’s critical edition and therefore claimed that, excluding the first printed edition of 1872 (a facsimile edition), his own was the first annotated version. Fornari forgot and was, in turn, forgotten, because none of the subsequent editions (including that of Falabella) mentioned him in the review of consulted bibliography [3].

Giovanni Gerolamo Savoldo, Tobias and the Angel, about 1527, Rome, Galleria Borghese
Source: Web Gallery of art via Wikimedia Commons

Paolo Pino

About Paolo Pino we know virtually nothing. We know he was Venetian (or, rather, that he was born in the Venetian Republic). Not surprisingly, the first of the two dedications of the work was to Francesco Donà dalle Rose, doge from 1545 to 1553. We also know (because he wrote it) that he had been a student of Gerolamo Bresciano said the Savoldo (1480 - after 1548), whose poor fortune in Venice he complained in the treatise. His very small catalogue (around four or five works) placed him between Venice and Padua, in the time between 1534 and 1565. That Paolo Pino in reality gravitated actually around Padova is evidenced not only by his artworks, but also by a series of non-random references in the text: the presence of Pomponio Gaurico (long active in Padova) as a source for his work, and the reporting of a number of Paduan artists (from Domenico Campagnola to Stefano dell'Arzere) and the conclusion of the dialogue itself, where the two protagonists, once they exhausted the discussion, meet "Messer Pietro Antonio Miero, a young Paduan all sparkling in virtues, and loved by our Pino as he loves himself "(p. 136). These are only some clues. Clues which also blend well with two letters signed by him and come down to us, addressed to Alvise Cornaro, a central figure of the Renaissance in Padua in the middle of 1500. Also not always reliable sources, like Francesco Sansovino (in his Venezia città nobilissima – Venice, very noble city – dated 1581) and Anton Francesco Doni (within his Seconda Libraria – Second library – in 1551), added some element on Pino’s literary production, who according to Sansovino, would consist of "two comedies" and "several other poems", while according to Doni it would encompass some “pastoral eclogues "(p. 19). Starting from these elements, I would like try (taking all responsibilities for the results of my attempt) to go a bit farther than Mss Barocchi and Falabella did in a immeasurably more competent way than mine, and suggest some elements of reflexion. 

Giovanni Gerolamo Savoldo, Saini Matthew and the Angel, 1534, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Source: Web Gallery of Art via Wikimedia Commons

Giovanni Gerolamo Savoldo, Ritratto of a young man playing flute, about 1540 , Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo
Source: http://www.mnw.art.pl/en/temporary-exhibitions/brescia-the-renaissance-in-northern-italy,21.html via Wikimedia Commns

The literary nature of the Dialogue

The first element concerns the literary nature of the Dialogue. Whether the information by Sansovino and Doni is true or not, it seems clear that, behind an apparent feature of simplicity, the dialogue unfolded on two different registers, corresponding to the two characters, Fabio (Florentine painter) and Lauro (Venetian artist). Fabio was a "melancholic" artist ("I am accepting the invitation... for I am, as you know, more than melancholic" - see p. 88). Melancholy, however, corresponded to one of the characteristic traits of painting ("painting is not physical hard work, but keeps the man quiet, and melancholic,  with the natural virtues attached to the Idea" - see p. 132). Most probably the author also knew the famous engraving on Melancholia (1514) by Dürer, whom he mentioned as "very excellent in drawing" (p. 87). At least 80% of the text were made up of Fabio’s speeches, that is the one explaining all theoretical issues. Lauro counterpointed Fabio; the former often stayed vis-à-vis Fabio with the attitude of the disciple in front of the student, asking questions and being anxious to hear answers, only to descend from theory to reality. Almost all the names of the artists mentioned in the dialogue were introduced by Lauro. Fabio theorized, Lauro recognizes him - in essence - a superior stance in terms of thinking process, but immediately translated it into concrete cases. All this - let me say - cannot be just a coincidence and betrays primarily an ability to structure a literary text that, I think, makes it perfectly trust the information given to us by Sansovino and Doni.

Albrecht Dürer, Melancholia I, 1514, Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum
Source: http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/mdrozdowski/img/me_gs1.jpg via Wikimedia Commons

Pino’s ultimate goal (as explained in the preface to the readers) was to clarify what painting is, since "none else, either ancient or modern, ever explained it in full" (p. 87). To this aim, Pino seemed to adopt a model that made it complementary to each other the Tuscan artistic reflection and the Venetian practical skills. It is therefore (in my opinion) completely baseless to make the hypothesis that Pino’s Dialogue was an anti-Tuscan text before time. Instead, it seems more logical to speak of a classic example of cross-cultural transmission of culture, destined for an educated public, probably encompassing the members of the Accademia degli Infiammati (Academy of the Inflamed), which opened in Padua around 1540. It was populated by the intellectual elite of the city and those, who although coming from outside, frequented the Paduan humanist circles. The temptation to match this popularizing effort with the artistic phase, when the Tuscan style had a good reception in the lagoon area (it was exactly in those years), is very strong.

Obviously, this does not mean that Pino had no personal dislikes. These dislikes - however - were substantiated in a series of considerations equally touching the Tuscan and Venetian world. This is the case, for example, of Leon Battista Alberti: when (always in the dedication to the readers) Pino wrote that Alberti "made a treatise on painting in Latin language, which is more about mathematics that about painting, although it promises the opposite" (p. 87), undoubtedly he was making reference to the beginning of Leon Battista Alberti’s De Pictura, which stated the following: "In any of our talking, please consider me not as mathematician but as painter writing on these issues" (p. 69 n. 12). The reference is much more compelling than you might think; in 1547 (i.e. the previous year) Ludovico Domenichi published in Venice the first Italian translation of the De Pictura, and there is no doubt that Pino made the effort to establish himself as the first to provide a comprehensive definition of painting [4]. On the other hand, the derogatory reference to " empiestrar’ [editor's note: smear] through practical actions" was addressed to the Venetian Andrea Schiavone (p.113), while the charge of excessive perfectionism was in fact addressed to Giovanni Bellini and the complaints about Savoldo’s poor artistic fortunes called into question the inability of the Venetian world to really understand his greatness.

End of Part One

Go to Part Two 

NOTES

[1] Paola Barocchi’s version (later taken in the Scritti d'arte del Cinquecento - Writings of the sixteenth century art) is available online on the website of the Memofonte Foundation.

[2] Paolo Pino’s ‘Dialogo di Pittura’: A Translation with Commentary, edited by Mary Pardo, University of Pittburgh, 1984.

[3] There is no doubt on the existence of the Fornari edition, not only because it appeared on the Internet, but also because it is physically part of the Mazzaferro Library.

[4] As a caveat, I am referring here to a question which, curiously, I have not found or reported by Mss Barocchi or Falabella. As seen, the full title of the work of Pino is "anew-discovered dialogue on painting." Unlike current use at the time, the wording “anew" could have two distinct meanings (in Tommaseo, I witnessed them both, one in Dante and the other in Boccaccio): "just now, just recently" or "again, a second time". I assume that Mss Barocchi and Falabella took for granted that, in this case, "anew" stood for "recently". However, if the author really meant to say "again" in the absence of any indication within the work about a previous edition, as well as of any bibliographic reference (this could be a "ghost" issue), one might think that the work used to be read (or recited) only or had a manuscript circulation only (perhaps as part of the Academy of Infiammati); a new version would have been produced during the printing process. As such, it is not impossible, if one considers that we have no element of information on Pino’s plays and poems. This is not to support the existence of a previous version of the work. I am simply noting that this "anew" is an ambiguous terminology, perhaps deliberately used by Pino simply to establish, also in terms of chronology, a chronological birthright even ahead of the Italian translation of Alberti’s De Pictura.