‘They paint in Flanders only to deceive the external eye... [as well as depicting] saints and prophets. Their painting is of stuffs: bricks and mortar, the grass of the fields, the shadow of the trees, and bridges and rivers – which they call landscapes – and little figures here and there; and all this, although it appears good to some eyes, is in truth done without reasonableness and art, without symmetry or proportion, without care in selecting or rejecting, and finally without any substance or verve... I do not speak of Flemish painting because it is all bad, but because it tries to do so many things at once, each of which alone would suffice for a great work, so that it does not do anything really well.’
The extract above is taken from Francisco de Holanda’s dialogues, that consists of a collection of recorded conversations that took place between Holanda himself and various individuals in Rome during 1538. Holanda was a Portuguese court painter, architect and sculptor for the Portuguese king Joao III but he studied in Italy between 1538- 1547 during which time he met prominent artists such as Parmigianino and Michelangelo. The section of focus from the dialogues show Michelangelo’s opinions as recorded by Holanda on Flemish art work and the text functions as an attack on the Flemish style due to its imitation of nature and lack of artistic creativity. The dialogues are a record of Michelangelo’s own words and so can be read as the direct opinion of Michelangelo himself. This is a similarity Holanda’s dialogues hold to Condivi’s ‘Life of Michelangelo’, written in 1553, which seems to display the direct opinions of Michelangelo as a means to correct the writings of Vasari’s 1550 ‘Lives of the Artists’. It is interesting to compare writing which has evidently been altered by Michelangelo to a record of his conversations, as well as a biography he had not altered, however, in order to evaluate this extract, a selection of themes will be addressed. To begin, it will be discussed why Michelangelo has singled out the Flemish art in particular and it will be analysed in relation to the rivalry between Michelangelo and Leonardo di Vinci. Following this, Michelangelo’s dismissiveness of Leonardo’s use of scienza and natura will be discussed in relation to Michelangelo’s opinions on the representation of beauty. It will then be evaluated how Michelangelo suggests that Flemish art fails to study other previous, pre-existing art works, only displaying a representation of what is seen around us everyday rather than an artistic representation. Lastly, it will be considered how Michelangelo’s creative method differs from the creative method he believed was used by Flemish painters.
The section of the dialogue begins with the statement ‘they paint in Flanders only to deceive the external eye’, a comment that develops questions as to why Michelangelo is commenting on Flemish art. The extract primarily singles out Flemish art work due to its representation of nature and the way it shows a direct representation of the natural world. However, the comments can be read as an indirect attack on Michelangelo’s rival Leonardo Di Vinci. Although from Italy and not the Netherlands, the comments made in this statement strongly link and mirror the work of Leonardo Di Vinci and so in criticising the Flemish works it could be seen as Michelangelo’s way of expressing dislike for Leonardo’s work without directly stating so and causing disagreements. Di Vinci, although twenty-three years Michelangelo’s senior, posed a direct threat on Michelangelo due to both artists being compared and contrasted as the greatest artists in Italy. This rivalry between the two artists is most evidently seen during the early 16th century as they were placed in direct competition, creating compositions alongside each other for frescos either side of the Signoria’s seat in the hall of the great council in the Palazzo della Signoria. This competition could have led Michelangelo to feel it necessary to prove himself as the greatest painter in Italy. By talking badly of Flemish artwork that appeared to value the same ideals as Di Vinci, seemingly allowed individuals to make their own judgments of Di Vinci without directly expressing his opinions and dislike. In signifying that the painters of Flanders only work to ‘deceive the external eye’, it is suggested that Michelangelo believed they did not paint in Flanders to show and express beauty but to simply recreate what the eye can see and in doing so, never truly and accurately presenting what the external eye can see. By indirectly associating this with Di Vinci, it could be conceived that Michelangelo is once again asserting his greatness over Di Vinci and advocating that he is merely an imitator not an artist. This is heightened through the comment that ‘I do not speak of Flemish art because it is all bad’ suggesting that he believed some or a large majority of the flemish work to be bad bringing to question which works and which artists.
In continuing this critique on the representation of nature, in the extract Michelangelo states that the Flemish painters are too focused on painting what they see, ‘their painting is of stuffs […] which they call landscapes’. The dismissive tone of this comment expresses his dislike for this aspect of their painting style. His distaste is similarly evident in his words, ‘which they call’, suggesting Michelangelo had a differing, better idea on how to paint. The painting and depiction of things as they are seen is a strong referral to Di Vinci’s method of painting in relation to the importance he places on scienza and natura. At the end of the 15th century there was a significant shift in disengo, the importance of drawing and its role in relation to natura, the imitation of nature that is most notably reflected in Di Vinci’s approach. Di Vinci believed that painting should conceal the process of disengo in order to produce greater natura, an idea that would have been strongly disliked by Michelangelo who favoured disengo and the inclusion of lines and colour. Similarly, in order to make these things appear real in nature, Di Vinci believed that scienza and the knowledge of the world added to the ability to make things believable in paintings. This style of painting can be evaluated in Leonardo’s Madonna of the Rock’s (Fig. 1) 1482-6, through the way the landscape and aerial perspective is accurately represented to such an extent that the setting becomes as important as the figures and the narrative. The painting becomes more about its realism and accuracy than artistic representation and narrative, linking back to Michelangelo’s comment in the extract that dismisses the Flemish works as mere ‘landscapes’. Contrastingly, when looking at Michelangelo’s Leda and the Swan (Fig. 2), from the 1530s, the body appears at first sight warped, uncomfortable and unnatural, however, Michelangelo believed in painting beyond nature. He believed that painting accurately what was seen everyday was a pointless task when artists had the imagination to paint beauty from a higher realm. This links back to the idea that Michelangelo states it is trivial to paint ‘stuffs’ and that artists have an artistic freedom which should be expressed.
Furthering the conversation on Michelangelo’s creative process of assimilation, the importance of viewing other artworks also becomes an important factor in creating for Michelangelo. This creative process is alluded to through his comment that the Flemish art is done ‘without reasonableness and art, without symmetry or proportion, without care in selecting or rejecting, and finally without any substance or verve’. In this statement, Michelangelo is suggesting how the Flemish art only imitates from nature and lacks the qualities that are needed to create good art by looking at other works of art. This links strongly to Michelangelo’s assimilative creative process in which he gathered previously successful ideas from artists, combining them with new methods to create something experimental and successful. These ideas can be seen in works such as the Creation of Adam (Fig. 3) on the Sistine chapel ceiling in which many aspects resemble the works of previous artists, most notably the work of Ghiberti on the Florence Baptistery doors in which both the representation of God and the stance of Adam can be linked to Michelangelo’s work. Likewise, when looking at Michelangelo’s sculpture of Bacchus (Fig. 4) it can be noted that Michelangelo had taken ideas from across all forms of art, antiquity and the contemporary moment. This is seen through the references and uncanny resemblance of the sculpture to the presentation of Bacchus in classical literature. As well as this, the structure of the sculpture created in the rounds and the inclusion of the figura serpentinata harks back to the sculptures of David 1430 by Donatello and Orpheus 1480 by Bertoldo. In combining these ideas, Michelangelo was able to put together a work of art that resembles the reinvention of the classical sculpture, something that could not have been achieved through merely imitating nature. The work became one that looked like an antique and closely resembled the presentation of Bacchus in literature but also sought and achieved the new daring techniques of sculpture, including protrusions, gaps and creating a sculpture in the rounds. It is apparent through these examples that Michelangelo’s assimilative creative process was one which he followed regularly in his career and so in declaring that the Flemish reject the ideas of ‘proportion’ and ‘reasonableness’, ideas that are developed through looking at other art works, Michelangelo is suggesting that Flemish painters are lacking a key component in creating a successful work of art.
Lastly, from the extract it is evident that Michelangelo believes it is not that the works depicting nature are poor but they are unsuccessful in the way they try ‘to do so many things at once, each of which alone would suffice for a great work, so that it does not do anything really well’. The suggestion that Michelangelo is addressing here, is that the Flemish artists try to create something so immaculate and representational of nature that it does not reach the pinnacle in anything it possesses. This proposes that Michelangelo believes a successful work of art to be one with one aim alone rather than trying to fulfil everything at once. In looking at Michelangelo’s work on the Battle of Cascina (Fig. 5), a work that was in direct competition with Di Vinci, it becomes evident that one focus was a successful method for Michelangelo. For example, with Di Vinci having created a work depicting a typical cavalry battle including horses, fighting, men and fabrics, Michelangelo sought to compete with the work by focusing on one aspect in which he could particularly excel, the aspect of nude bodies. The result of which was a picture that displayed a mass of nude bodies before battle, twisted, contorted and foreshortened in order to express the one aspect Michelangelo had decided to focus on to its highest caliber and express his skill to its highest degree. The extract suggested that in trying to achieve more it is undoubtable the work will fail.
The text taken from Holanda’s dialogues is not the only representation of this attack on other painters who follow differing rules and produce work in a differing style to Michelangelo. It has been noted through the links and comparisons established between Di Vinci’s style and the extract that the conversations with Holanda can be read as an attack on Di Vinci. It is also worth pointing out that this attack on the painters who imitate nature is also present in Vasari’s ‘Life of Titian’ in the second 1568 edition of the ‘Lives of the Artists’. In this text Vasari similarly criticises Titian for imitating nature and favouring colore. As by doing so Titian is also neglecting artistic freedom and disengo. It becomes clear from looking at these texts from both extracts and various writers that Michelangelo felt very strongly about the importance of artistic creativity and creating something beyond that which everyday life offers. To conclude, Holanda’s account of Michelangelo’s opinions on Flemish painters has allowed a discussion on his rivalry with Leonardo Di Vinci and a debate on the differing styles of the two painters. Similarly, the extract has allowed an importance in Michelangelo’s assimilative process to be acknowledged and suggested that Michelangelo believed art should have one primary goal in order to be successful. Holanda’s dialogue’s have offered a first hand view on Michelangelo’s opinions and attitude towards art and have therefore become a source of primary evidence into Michelangelo’s life and attitudes.
Fig. 1. Leonardo di Vinci, Madonna of the Rocks, 1486, Oil on panel, 199cm x 122cm (The National Gallery).
Fig. 2. Michelangelo, Leda and the Swan, 1530, Tempera on canvas, 199cm x 122cm (The National Gallery).
Fig. 3. Michelangelo, Creation of Adam, 1512, Fresco, 280cm x 570cm (Wikipedia).
Fig. 4, Ghiberti, Florence Baptistery Doors, Story of Genesis, 1425-50, Gilded bronze individual relief, 31 ¼ inches square, (Wikipedia).
Fig. 5, Michelangelo, Bacchus, 1497, Marble, 203cm (Wikipedia).
Fig. 6, Michelangelo, Copy of Battle of Cascina by pupil Aristotele de Sangallo, C.1542, Oil on panel, 77cm X 130cm (Wikipedia).
Comments