Ihab Salloum[ad_1]
Baxandall’s seminal work, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style, first hit the shelves in 1972. This piece, although relatively short, has since been published in numerous languages, including a recent Chinese edition, and even received a second edition in 1988. Many praise it, from its intelligent and persuasive argumentation to its concise and lucid writing style, with some even hailing it as a source of new and significant material. However, don’t be fooled by its appearance as a single book; in reality, it is three books in one.
Baxandall skillfully brings together various threads of previous art historical methodology, pushing the boundaries of the discipline in Painting and Experience. As the field of art history emerged, art began to be recognized as a unique expression of specific societies and civilizations. This breakthrough was pioneered by Johann Joachim Winckelmann in his influential work, History of the Art of Antiquity (1764). Baxandall, however, is not the first to delve into the viewer’s perspective of a painting, nor is he the trailblazer in exploring the relationship between patrons and artists; Haskell had already touched upon the latter in his 1963 book, Patrons and Painters. Lacan introduced the concept of the “gaze,” and Gombrich explored “the beholder’s share” even before Baxandall’s Painting and Experience was published. Baxandall himself acknowledges the “Gombrichian” influence in chapter two of his book.
Drawing inspiration from anthropologists, particularly Herskovits and his ideas on cognitive style, Baxandall’s approach focuses on the influence of patrons on the style of paintings. He posits that the patron’s viewpoint is culturally constructed, asserting that a fifteenth-century painting is a reflection of a social relationship. This conviction is encapsulated in the opening sentence of the first chapter, “Conditions of Trade,” where Baxandall declares that a fifteenth-century painting is the outcome of a specific context.
In this chapter, Baxandall explores the impact of patronage on the evolution of pictorial style, analyzing the content of contracts and letters exchanged between patrons and painters. He argues that the symbiotic relationship between artist and patron is governed by a range of institutions and conventions, such as commercial, religious, perceptual, and social factors. Baxandall claims that his approach to studying patron and painter dynamics was not influenced by Haskell’s Patrons and Painters or by D.S. Chambers’ Patrons and Artists in the Italian Renaissance.
To support his ideas regarding the development of pictorial style, Baxandall highlights the changing emphasis on the artist’s skill rather than the materials used in a painting, as evident in the terms outlined in contracts. This unique aspect of Baxandall’s analysis sheds light on how patrons prioritized skill over materials. For example, the contract between Ghirlandaio and Giovanni Tornabuoni in 1485 stipulated that the background should include “figures, buildings, castles, cities,” as opposed to the previous practice of gilding backgrounds. By demanding an “expenditure of labor, if not skill,” Tornabuoni emphasizes the importance of artistic proficiency in this commission.
Baxandall argues that explaining this development solely within the history of art would be futile. He invokes the role, availability, and perception of gold in fifteenth-century Italy to situate his argument within the realm of social and cultural history. By referencing instances such as the Sienese ambassador’s embarrassment at King Alfonso’s court in Naples due to his ostentatious attire, Baxandall portrays how this conspicuous consumption came under scrutiny. He further explores the need for “old money” to distinguish itself from “new money” and the rise of humanism as factors driving the shift towards buying artistic skill as a display of wealth and social status.
However, Baxandall’s analysis encounters a significant challenge in identifying how viewers at the time would have recognized the acquisition of skill. He acknowledges this issue himself, stating that contracts would not provide any record of it, as recording viewers’ opinions on paintings was not common practice back then. Therefore, there is minimal evidence to support his argument, and he does not present any contracts that reference the aesthetic qualities, expressions, iconography, proportions, or colors to be employed in the paintings.
Critiques of Baxandall’s approach, such as Joseph Manca’s, suggest that he paints a picture of dependent artists who unquestioningly cater to the desires of patrons or the public. However, we know that this is not entirely true, as evidenced by Bellini’s refusal to paint for Isabella d’Este and Perugino finding certain themes unsuited to his art, despite accepting commissions from Isabella.
Additionally, Baxandall overlooks the rising agency of artists and their access to materials as influences on style. For instance, Andrea Mantegna’s style was greatly influenced by his visits to Rome, where he encountered various artifacts from ancient Rome and acquired them for his work in Mantua. Furthermore, Baxandall does not explore the training artists received during fifteenth-century Italy, which could have shed light on their stylistic development. All the painters he references were part of workshops and trained by a master, resulting in a shared artistic style. As Baxandall himself admitted in 1996, “I didn’t like the first chapter of Painting and Experience. I had done it quickly because something was needed, and it seemed to me a bit crass.”
The central chapter of Painting and Experience, titled the “Period Eye,” delves into the concept of the cognitive style, which Baxandall considers the most crucial chapter and one that draws inspiration from anthropology. According to Baxandall, the physiological process of seeing is uniform among all humans, but interpretation varies from one individual to another. The “period eye” refers to the social practices and cultural norms that shape visual forms within a particular culture. These experiences both shape and represent the culture itself. Consequently, patrons would provide artists with a brief that incorporated these culturally significant representations, which the artists would strive to fulfill in their paintings. The concept of the “period eye” allows us, as twenty-first-century viewers, to perceive fifteenth-century Italian paintings through the same lens as a fifteenth-century Italian businessman. It embodies an innovative approach to understanding art production, moving away from the cause and effect theories prevalent in early art historical research. However, how was the “period eye” constructed?
Baxandall argues that viewers acquired many of the skills necessary to interpret paintings from outside the realm of actually looking at paintings. He examines the economic activities of Florence’s merchant class, highlighting their need for skills such as barrel gauging, arithmetic, and mathematics. These abilities provided them with a more sophisticated visual apparatus, allowing them to perceive geometric shapes in paintings and understand their relative sizes and proportions in relation to other objects within the artwork. Baxandall also discusses dance and gesture as further examples of social practices that aided viewers in comprehending the narratives depicted in paintings. He asserts that the widespread engagement in the Bassa Danza, for instance, equipped individuals with the necessary cultural knowledge to interpret certain gestures and movements portrayed in paintings.
In conclusion, Baxandall’s Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style brings together various strands of art historical methodology, propelling the discipline forward. While not the first to delve into the viewer’s perspective or the dynamics between patrons and artists, Baxandall’s innovative ideas regarding the development of pictorial style through contractual negotiations provide a fresh perspective. However, his argument encounters challenges in terms of identifying how viewers of the time recognized the influence of skill acquisition. Furthermore, Baxandall’s focus on patrons as the primary shapers of style overlooks the agency of artists and their access to materials. Nonetheless, his exploration of the “period eye” as a cultural lens through which art production can be evaluated proves to be a valuable contribution to art historical discourse.
[ad_2]
