Essay Response
"Brunelleschi and the Ideal Renaissance Artist"
2 August 2013
Vasari frames the development of the Renaissance artist as a path towards perfection. Christian theology is a primary source of inspiration, from which he compares the goal of art and the artist with divine perfection. In fact, Vasari describes artists of the third period, most notably Michelangelo, as having achieved a level of artistry that could only have been divinely inspired. The artists of the second period, from which Brunelleschi originates in the early Quattrocento, exhibit a combination of human frailties along with those elevated virtues associated with the latter period. In my view, although perfective models can lead to ambitious developmental undertakings that may or may not prove successful, greater lessons can be learned from the interaction of an artist’s virtues and challenges. Brunelleschi demonstrates this by his life-long friendship with Donatello, where his friendly rivalry led to the development of the arts by applying good judgment, even when it meant giving honor to a fellow artist.
Vasari’s use of hyperbole, characterizes a path towards perfection of the arts that could only be associated with “supreme intelligence, the source of light, the Creator.”[1] This divine ability, attributed to the “light”, is a source of inspiration that comes directly from the "Creator". Although, Vasari had more earthly motivations that were influenced by the nobility and the writings of Castiglione. The humanist ideals that constructed the image of the ideal Renaissance artist were prevalent throughout the social circles of the elite he was appealing to. Courtly and gentlemanly qualities were demonstrated in the Lives to elevate the status of the artist to that of nobility.[2]
The artists did not have all the wealth of nobility, for they had to make money to earn a living. So, they were industrious and quick in judgment while in competition with other artists. The acquisition of wealth was not their main concern, rather it was “the development of the individual’s skill and the ability to solve artistic problems.”[3] The rivalry between them was constructive because it allowed them to exercise good judgment by honing their talent in perfecting their art, and the ultimate honor and glory that comes from their recognition by others. The artist is also obliged to recognize the good in others, even when one must concede their superiority. Art and the artist must also make progress through “the incentive and opportunity to equal or surpass one’s master or one’s colleagues.”[4] So, a reciprocal relationship must include both the recognition from a master or competitor, and an internal motivation to excel one’s self and one’s art.
Through this competitive spirit the artist uses imitation as a learning process. The value of imitation as a skill is central to “Vasari’s aesthetic,” which is operative in perfecting the arts.[5] Imitative skill was valued in studying contemporaries and predecessors, particularly the classical art excavated in Rome during the High Renaissance described by Pliny, which gave the artists of the third period something to build upon.[6] The artist was required to be leaned in the classics and all of the liberal arts and to study diligently of nature and science.[7] The highest form of artist was able to even surpass nature and antiquity from the models they were given. Nature could only provide so much, and required the divine creativity of the artist to be inventive and surpass the examples he was given. Vasari makes the claim that excessive study produces works that are hard and dry. Ideally the artist must think beyond the presented rules through artistic inspiration that comes with the ability for sound judgment in solving artistic problems. The “license” and “grace” to navigate beyond what is given are “essential qualities of artistic excellence.”[8]
When Vasari wrote, “lumps of earth conceal veins of gold” he was characterizing Brunelleschi’s image of a seemingly insignificant man who possessed many great internal qualities that manifested in how he worked and the art he produced.[9] It also frames his life long struggle to be recognized for his work, winning commissions and his ultimate triumph over adversity from those of lesser ability. His resulting secrecy and lack of trust was offset by a friendship with his equal Donatello, who supported one another through recognizing their innate good.
The baptistery doors competition set the stage for a wonderful friendship between Brunelleschi and Donatello, where they were able to work together by balancing their own interests with the public good. If perfection of the arts was indeed their goal, then according to Vasari, their persuasion of the council to award Ghiberti the project “was indeed the true goodness of friendship, excellence without envy, and a sound judgment in the knowledge of their own selves…”[10] They were able to achieve this goal through the enlightened persuasion of the council and their truly noble understanding of courtly etiquette. Their friendship was solidified through competition to harmonize a like-minded awareness of what it means to be a good artist and what art is deserving of praise. The baptistery competition inspired a trip to Rome that affected the course of their careers through the carful study of antique ruins that particularly influenced Brunelleschi in architecture through his diligent production of drawings. His diligence at study solidifies him as a great artist through which, “architecture rediscovered the proportions and measurements of the antique…”[11] This anecdote of their joint trip shows the close friendship between Donatello and Brunelleschi marked by healthy competition, also from earlier sources, the story of the friendly rivalry between them over the two crucifixes.[12] Throughout Brunelleschi’s life, lesser competitors conspired with envy against him, because they were unable to acknowledge his superiority. This lack of good judgment inhibits the efforts of the less talented, and it is good judgment that is essentially required in the perfection of the arts.[13]
Brunelleschi was himself not perfect. His very human qualities such as his unassuming outward appearance concealed his inward talent. Physical attributes were an important part of praise according to Vasari, which he generously endowed upon the character of Leonardo DaVinci with an almost divine ere. ‘Impressiveness and beauty’ served to heighten the virtuosity of the character.[14] Brunelleschi’s concealment, which reflects his secretiveness, was a source of conflict because people would underestimate him, but this would serve him well in the end because his ideas were protected from those who vied to surpass him, and he was able to turn the minds of the tribunal in a revolutionary way, thus revealing his “veins of gold.” It was not until he was given a second chance that the dispute over the egg won him the project, and it shows that thinking creatively, by demonstrating that his opponents could not have known how to vault the cupola without seeing his designs, he was able to convince the public without direct explanation of his plans.
This pattern of secrecy and strategic revelation occurs again when he revealed the beautiful stair of his lantern model to his audience, and again when he theatrically revealed the wooden crucifix to Donatello. In every instance, Brunelleschi is framed as a magician, stunning his audience into submission under the spell of his genius. Vasari often uses this magical quality to depict artists with an almost supernatural gift. Their lives as particular anecdotes can be attributed to theater that amuses the mind, like a magician on stage.
Theater manifests itself quite literally when Brunelleschi plays sick so that Ghiberti would be shown to lack competence as his partner in the project and thus could obtain sole leadership. In a dramatic line “The wardens answered: ‘He will do nothing without you.’ And then Filippo retorted: ‘I would do it well enough without him.’”[15] In that moment the wardens realized that Filippo had fallen ill because he wanted the work to himself, and it serves for the reader a moment of amusement that we are all subject to Brunelleschi’s wit.
Plutarch articulated a method for bringing a legend to life in the introduction to his biographies of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar:
“…a chance remark or a joke may reveal far more of a man’s character … When a portrait painter sets out to create a likeness, he relies above all upon the face and the expression of the eyes and pays less attention to the other parts of the body; in the same way its is my task to dwell upon those actions which illuminate the workings of the soul, and by this means to create a portrait of each man’s life.”[16]
Brunelleschi’s final remark to his patrons that he is unhappy with the conditions of his joint contract with Ghiberti is a rhetorical device implemented by Vasari that reveals the innate character more effectively than any drawn-out prose. In many ways it is like comparing an exhaustive drawing with the freshness and vivacity of a quick gesture that captures all the qualities of the sitter. So, the portrait that Vasari is creating is that of a witty and brilliant artist that is effectively revealed by a chance remark.
Brunelleschi is by no means a deceptive person through his theatricality, for he is always fair and generous with those who work for him, but he is shown to posses such high judgment that when he is confronted with obstacles, as a mark of revelation he turns the minds of the obstinate. It is clear that throughout his life he was able to overcome adversity that was not his own making. For it is implied that if he was more outwardly virtuous, he may have struggled less in winning his competitions. Even when his opponents vied to surpass him, since they saw the potential he had, it was up to him to make his ostensible disadvantage into strength, through the dramatic revelation of the unexpected. It sets a precedent for the establishment of the modern artist within the contemporary world. Clearly, Brunelleschi was inventive at solving problems by inventing perspective for the requirements of architectural representation and devising the double wall construction of the dome for the Florence Cathedral, but it required more than good work to execute his plans. A certain amount of persuasion was required, and knowledge of how to interact with the upper social circles that ultimately determined his success. The modern artist can learn that effectively working with patrons in a strategic yet courtly manner can result in winning commissions.
Brunelleschi was certainly gifted in many areas from an early age and had a fruitful upbringing that supported his education. I would contend that he ultimately possessed a mastery of design in architecture rivaling that of Michelangelo, though Vasari argues that it was Michelangelo’s disegno that made him supreme. Brunelleschi’s proficiency in mathematics and science, which he studied with diligence, and the poetics of rhetoric, which allowed him to overcome so much adversity, was brought together and supported by his lifelong friendship with Donatello. Their friendship served to increase their respective skills through healthy competition and console one another in times of hardship. It was a formative friendship that can set an example for future artists. When presented with the divine graces of the third period artists, forming unions with colleagues can be a powerful motivator for the growth of practice, both personal and for those around you. Their friendships had so many positive effects for the culture around them, where they were always able to act with good judgment went it came to giving praise when warranted. Artists can learn from the positive effects of camaraderie in advancing the level of not only their art, but also the world of art in general. For healthy competition advances all art forms by progressing through a measured approach of imitation and invention through building on observed positive qualities. The path towards perfection is set out at the beginning of the Renaissance and completed by Vasari in his characterization of Michelangelo. In one respect, contemporary artists all belong to the second period, located in the middle of a larger continuance possessing certain virtues and challenges, whose ideal goal is to improve their art form.
Bibliography
Alpers, Svetlana Leontief. “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives” Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes Vol. 23, No.3/4 (Jul.-Dec., 1960): 190-215.
Brown, G. Baldwin, “Vasari on Technique,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs Vol. 10, No 46 (January, 1907): 252-255.
Clifton, James. “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 23-41.
.Goldstein, Carl. “Vasari and the Florentine Accademia del Disegno,” Zeitschrift fur Kunstegeschichte Vol. 38, No. 2 (1975): 145-152.
Rubin, Patricia. “What Men Saw: Vasari’s Life of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Image of the Renaissance Artist,” Art History Vol. 13, No. 1 (March, 1990): 34-46.
Vasari, Georgio. Lives of the Artists (Volume I). London: Penguin Book
[1]Patricia
Rubin, “What Men Saw: Vasari’s Life of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Image of the
Renaissance Artist,” Art History Vol.
13, No. 1 (March, 1990): 35.
[2]Patricia Rubin, “What Men Saw: Vasari’s Life of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Image of the Renaissance Artist,” Art History Vol. 13, No. 1 (March, 1990): 38.
[3]James Clifton, “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 28.
[4]James Clifton, “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 30.
[5]Svetlana Leontief Alpers. “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives” Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes Vol. 23, No.3/4 (Jul.-Dec., 1960): 193.
[6]Georgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists (Volume I) (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 251.
[7]G. Baldwin Brown, “Vasari on Technique,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs Vol. 10, No 46 (January, 1907): 252-255.
[8] Carl Goldstein, “Vasari and the Florentine Accademia del Disegno,” Zeitschrift fur Kunstegeschichte Vol. 38, No. 2 (1975): 150.
[9] Georgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists (Volume I) (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 133.
[10] James Clifton. “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 31.
[11] Georgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists (Volume I) (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 90.
[12] James Clifton, “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 32.
[13] James Clifton. “Vasari on Competition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 34.
[14] Patricia Rubin, “What Men Saw: Vasari’s Life of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Image of the Renaissance Artist,” Art History Vol. 13, No. 1 (March, 1990): 34-46.
[15] Georgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists (Volume I) (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 153.
[16] Patricia Rubin, “What Men Saw: Vasari’s Life of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Image of the Renaissance Artist,” Art History Vol. 13, No. 1 (March, 1990): 40-41.