750 words 4.5 hrs

33

GIORGIO VASARI: From Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1550)

I do not believe that I w andered far from the true solution w hen I suggested that the

origin of these arts w as nature herself— the first im age or m odel, the m ost beautiful fabric of the

w orld— and the m aster [w as] that divine light infused into us by special grace, which has m ade

us not only superior to all other anim als, but has exalted us, if it be perm itted so to speak, to the

sim ilitude of G od H im self. This is m y belief, and I think that every m an w ho shall m aturely

consider the question w ill be of m y op inion. A nd if it has been seen in our tim es— as I hope to

dem onstrate presently by various exam ples— that sim ple children, rudely reared in the w oods,

have begun to practice the arts of design w ith no other m odel than those beautiful pictures and

sculptures furnished by nature, and no other teaching than their ow n genius— how m uch m ore

easily m ay w e believe that the first of m ankind, in w hom nature and intellect w ere all the m ore

perfect in proportion as they w ere less rem oved from their first origin and divine parentage— that

these m en, I say, having nature for their guide, and the unsullied purity of their fresh intelligence

for their m aster, w ith the beautiful m odel of the w orld for an exem plar, should have given birth

to these m ost noble arts, and from a sm all beginning, am eliorating them by slow degrees, should

have conducted them finally to perfection? I do not intend to deny that there m ust have been one

w ho m ade the first com m encem ent, for I know perfectly w ell that the first principle m ust have

proceeded from som e given tim e, and from som e one person; neither w ill I deny the possibility

that one m ay have assisted another, thus teaching and opening the w ay to design, to colour, and

to relief; for I know that our art is altogether im itation, of nature principally, but also, for him

w ho cannot soar so high, of the works of such as he esteem s better m asters than him self. . . . Let

us proceed to m atters of w hich w e have better know ledge, the perfection of the arts, nam ely, their

decay and restoration, or rather second birth, of w hich w e can speak on m uch better grounds.

The rise of art in Rom e m ust have taken place at a late epoch, if it be true, as w e find

asserted, that am ong her first statues w as the bronze figure of Ceres, form ed from the spoils of

Spurius C assius, w ho w as deliberately put to death by his ow n father, for having aspired to

becom e king. A nd although the arts of sculpture and painting continued to be practiced to the

close of the reign of the tw elve Caesars, yet they did not m aintain them selves in that degree of

excellence and perfection w hich they had previously displayed; so that, in all the buildings

erected by the em perors, one after another, the arts m ay be gradually seen to decline, until all

perfection of the art of design w as ultim ately lost. To the truth of this assertion, the w orks in

sculpture and architecture, executed in Rom e under C onstantine, bear am ple testim ony, m ore

particularly the trium phal arch, raised to him by the Rom an people, near the C olosseum , w here

w e perceive that, for the want of good m asters, they not only availed them selves of sculptures

executed in the tim e of Trajan, but also of the spoils brought to Rom e from other parts of the

em pire. . . .

A fter the departure of Constantine, the Caesars w hom he left in Italy continued building

in Rom e and elsew here, and did their best for the execution of such works as they constructed;

but, as w e see, not only sculpture, but painting and architecture, fell constantly from bad to

w orse, and this, perhaps, because hum an affairs, w hen they begin to decline, never cease to sink,

until they have reached the low est d epths of deterioration. . . .

So it chanced that, after these things, the barbarous nations of the w orld arose, in divers

places, in rebellion against the Rom ans; w hence there ensued, in no long tim e, not only the

decline of that great em pire, but the utter ruin of the w hole, and m ore especially of Rom e herself,

w hen all the best artists, sculptors, painters, and architects were in like m anner totally ruined,

being subm erged and buried , together w ith the arts them selves, beneath the m iserable slaughters

and ruins of that m uch renow ned city. . . .

But infinitely m ore ruinous than all other enem ies to the arts above nam ed, w as the

fervent zeal of the new Christian religion, w hich, after long and sanguinary com bats, had finally

overcom e and annihilated the ancient creeds of the pagan w orld, by the frequency of m iracles

exhibited, and by the earnest sincerity of the m eans adopted; and ardently devoted, w ith all dili-

34

gence, to the extirpation of error, nay, to the rem oval of even the slightest tem ptation to heresy, it

not only destroyed all the w ondrous statues, paintings, sculptures, m osaics, and other ornam ents

of the false pagan deities, but at the sam e tim e extinguished the very m em ory, in casting dow n

the honours, of num berless excellent ancients, to w hom statues and other m onum ents had been

erected, in public places, for their virtues, by the m ost virtuous tim es of antiquity. N ay, m ore than

this, to build the churches of the Christian faith, this zeal not only destroyed the m ost renow ned

tem ples of the heathens, but, for the richer ornam ent of St. Peter*s, and in addition to the m any spoils previously bestow ed on that building, the tom b of A drian, now called the castle of St.

A ngelo, w as deprived of its m arble colum ns, to em ploy them for this church, m any other

buildings being in like m anner despoiled, and w hich w e now see w holly devastated. A nd

although the Christian religion did not effect this from hatred to these w orks of art, but solely for

the purpose of abasing and bringing into contem pt the gods of the Gentiles, yet the result of this

too ardent zeal did not fail to bring such total ruin over the noble arts, that their very form and

existence w as lost. . . .

It is to the m asters of those tim es that w e ow e the fantastic im ages and absurd figures still

to be seen in m any old w orks. A nd a sim ilar inferiority is perceptible in architecture, for it w as

necessary to build; but all good m ethods and correct form s being lost by the death of good artists

and the destruction of their w orks, those w ho devoted them selves to that em ploym ent w ere in no

condition to give either correct proportion or grace of any kind to their designs. Then arose new

architects, and they, after the m anner of their barbarous nations, erected the buildings in that

style w hich w e now call Gothic, and raising edifices that, to us m oderns, are rather to the

discredit than glory of the builders, until at a later period there appeared better artists, w ho

returned, in som e m easure, to the purer style of the antique; and this m ay be seen in m ost of the

old (but not antique) churches throughout Italy, w hich w ere built in the m anner just alluded to by

these last-nam ed artists. . . .

It w as only by slow degrees that those w ho came after, being aided in som e places by the

subtlety of the air around them , could begin to raise them selves from these depths; w hen,

tow ards 1250, H eaven, m oved to pity by the noble spirits w hich the Tuscan soil w as producing

every day, restored them to their prim itive condition. It is true that those w ho lived in the tim es

succeeding the ruin of Rom e, had seen rem nants of arches, colossi, statues, pillars, storied

colum ns, and other w orks of art, not w holly destroyed by the fires and other devastations; yet

they had not know n how to avail them selves of this aid, nor had they derived any benefit from it,

until the tim e specified above. W hen the m inds then aw akened, becom ing capable of

distinguishing the good from the worthless, and abandoning old m ethods, returned to the

im itation of the antique, w ith all the force of their genius, and all the pow er of their industry.

But that m y readers m ay the better com prehend w hat it is that I call “old,” and w hat

“antique,” I add that the antique are w orks executed before the tim e of Constantine, in Corinth,

A thens, Rom e, and other far-fam ed cities, dow n to the tim es of N ero, Vespasian, Trajan, H adrian,

and A ntoninus; “old” are such as w ere executed from the days of St. Silvester dow nw ards, by a

certain residue of the Greeks, w hose profession w as rather that of dyeing than painting. For the

greater part of the excellent earlier artists being extirpated in those tim es of war, there rem ained,

as I have said, nothing to these Greeks (“old,” but not “antique”) save only the first rude outlines

on a ground of colour, as is m ade sufficiently m anifest by a crow d of m osaics executed

throughout Italy by these Greeks and w hich m ay be seen in any old church of w hatsoever city

you please, through all the land. . . .

Thus m uch I have thought it advisable to say respecting the first com m encem ent of

sculpture and painting, and m ay perhaps have spoken at greater length than w as here needful;

but this I have done not so m uch because I w as carried on by m y love of art, as because I desire to

be useful and serviceable to the w hole body of artists, for they, having here seen the m anner in

w hich art proceeded from sm all beginnings, until she attained the highest sum m it, and next how

she was precipitated from that exalted position into the deepest debasem ent; and considering that

it is the nature of art, as of hum an existence, to receive birth, to progress, to becom e old, and to

die, m ay thus m ore perfectly com prehend and follow the progress of her second birth to the high

perfection w hich she has once m ore attained in these our days.

35

From : Lives of the M ost Em inent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, trans. M rs. Jonathan Foster

(L ondon: George Bell*s Sons, 1890).

36

LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI: Treatise on Painting

[IN TH IS BO O K] I shall think I have done enough if painters, w hen they read m e, can gain som e

inform ation in this difficult subject w hich has not, as I know of, been discussed hitherto by any

author. . . .

Is not painting the m istress of all others arts, or at least their principal ornam ent? . . .

There is hardly any art in w hich as w ell the ignorant as the skillful are em ployed either in

learning or practicing it w ith so m uch delight to them selves. If I m ay be allow ed to m ention

m yself; w henever for m y pleasure and recreation I sit dow n to paint, w hich I very often do w hen

m y affairs w ill perm it, I am so intent upon m y w ork and receive so m uch delight from it, that

three or four hours are gone before I im agine it. Thus w e see that this art affords pleasure w hile

you cultivate it, and honor, w ealth and perpetual fam e w hen you attain to perfection in it. . . .

H ave alw ays before your eyes, you that desire to excel in painting, the honor and fam e w hich the

ancients obtained by it. . . .

W e divide painting into three parts [the outline, the com position, and the coloring of the

picture]. . . . Com position is that part of draw ing, by w hich the several parts of the picture are

joined together to form a w hole. The greatest w ork of the painter is, not a colossus, but a history.

The parts of a history are bodies; the parts of a bod y are the m em bers; the parts of the m em bers

are superficies. . . . In the com position of the superficies beauty and gracefulness is chiefly to be

aim ed at. H ow this is to be attained, I have as yet been able to discover no m ethod m ore certain

that to study N ature, than to observe long and diligently how that w onderful A rtist proceeds in

com pounding the superficies in the m ost beautiful m em bers. . . .

The first thing that delights us in a piece of history is the num ber and variety of the

objects: for as in m eats and m usic w hat is new and exuberant alw ays pleases, as perhaps from

other causes, so particularly because it differs from w hat w e have been constantly used to; so the

m ind takes a pleasure in all other kinds of variety and abundance: and for this reason in painting

also a variety of figures and of colors is grateful. . . . Indeed I am pleased w ith all m anner of

abundance that w ill suit the subject represented: for this detains the eye of the beholder, and

obliges him to adm ire the richness of the painter*s fancy. But then I w ould have this abundance set off by variety, and preserve at the sam e tim e a due m oderation and dignity. . . . But as variety

is pleasing in any story, a picture is m ore particularly so w hen the positions and attitudes of the

several figures are very different one from the other. . . I w ould have no tw o figures in the sam e

action or attitude. . . .

A s in representing these m otions [of the body] truth and probability is som etim es

transgressed, I w ill here set dow n som e observations relating to the situation and m otion of the

m em bers w hich I have borrow ed from nature, in order to show w ith how m uch m oderation w e

ought to m ake use of these m otions. I have observed in m an, that in all his attitudes he brings his

w hole body under his head, as the m ost w eighty of all the m em bers. Thus if he rests his w hole

body upon one foot, that foot, like the base of a colum n, is alw ays perpendicularly under his

head, etc. . . . I have observed from nature, that the hands are seldom raised higher than the head,

nor the elbow above the shoulder, nor the foot higher than the knee, nor generally is one foot

rem oved from the other farther than the length of one of those feet.

[W ith regard to coloring] let the painter m ake light and shade his principal study. Let

him observe that upon that part of the superficie w here the rays of light fall, the color m ust be as

bright and strong as possible; and as the light dim inishes and sinks by degrees, the sam e color

m ust be m ade darker and darker, etc. . . .

I w ish the painter to be as learned as m ay be in all the liberal arts; but w hat I particularly

desire in him is som e know led ge in geom etry. I am entirely of the opinion of Pam philus, a m ost

ancient and em inent painter, w ho first taught the art to gentlem an*s sons, w ho declared it as his sentim ent, that one w ho w as ignorant of geom etry could never m ake a good painter. . . .

D em etrius, an ancient painter, fell short of perfection because he w as m ore curious to

express the strict resem blance of things, than to m ark their peculiar beauties. W e should therefore

m ake collections of the m ost com m ended parts of the m ost lovely bodies, and by no m eans

37

neglect applying ourselves w ith the greatest industry to learn, know and express w hat is

beautiful: which though it be the m ost d ifficult part of all, because everything that is beautiful is

not to be found in one single subject, but lies scattered and dispersed am ong several; yet w e m ust

spare no pains in finding it out and m aking ourselves m asters of it. . . . Everything therefore that

w e are to paint, let us copy from nature and from that part of nature too w hich has m ost beauty

and dignity.