Introducing Bronzino and Pontormo- Reaserch Entry I

Jacopo da Pontormo

(26 May 1494-31 Dec 1556)

     Born with the name Jacopo Caucci, Pontormo was one of the most original and influential Mannerist painters who lived in mid sixteenth-century Florence. Pontormo was the son of a long forgotten painter and was left orphaned at a young age- he was shuttled around under various apprenticeships including time spent with Leonardo DaVinci (Strehlke, 4). He is described as having an eccentric and expressive personality and had protection under the support Medici family. He collected influence from Michelangelo- whose haunting faces and elongated bodies directed a majority of his work (Strehlke, 2; all-art-pontormo). His subjective portrait style did not lend itself to the state portrait… “It was Jacopo who, in recording the appearance of his sitter, first sought to combine a massive imaginative simplicity and dignity of presentation with an intangible evocation of individual character (Strehlke, 2).

Agnolo Bronzino

(November 17, 1503- November 23, 1572)

     Angolo Bonzino, whose original name was Agniolo Di Cosimo, was another Florentine painter whose polished and elegant portraits became outstanding examples of Mannerist painting. He was also orphaned at a young age and found himself working under Jacopo da Pontormo as an apprentice. Bronzino and Pontormo were separated in age by only nine years. His masters’ eccentric style, Michelangelo and Raphael had an overwhelming impact on his artistic style. He too found himself under the protection of the Medici family where he became a court painter. His paintings had examples of great technical proficiency. Some of his courtly works show “preeminent examples of Mannerist portraiture: emotionally inexpressive, reserved and noncommittal, yet arrestingly elegant and decorative” (Strehlke, 5; all-art-bronzino).

     Durring the sixteenth century, Bronzino and Pontormo were amongst the greatest creators of private portraiture. Over the last two decades, a collection held at the Philadelphia Musem of Art has revealed new information about the close relationship between these two artists. The exhibition examines the development and transformation of the painted portrait in early sixteen-century Florence; often in collaboration, they sought a new way of portraying the Florentine man. Jacopo Pontormo's portrait of Alessandro de' Medici Agnolo Bronzino's allegorical portrait of Cosimo de' Medici, serve as the centerpieces of the collection. In both artists work, portraiture is about recognition- who one is or who one wishes to be. The unusual portraits of the Medici embody the cultural concerns- both literary and artistic-- of their time without alluding to their political roles.
“…For Pontormo the human personality exists in a murky void. Attention is focused on the face, and the only detail that is admitted relates to the profession of the sitter… Bronzino, on the other hand, portrays the individual in a setting- a physical setting… and an intellectual setting too.” (Strrehlke, XII)

Jacopo Pontormo's portrait of Alessandro de' Medici                Bronzino's allegorical portrait of Cosimo de' Medici
 
     The collection of paintings and drawings in the Philadelphia Art Museum’s exhibition gives us a unique look into Bronzino and Pontormo’s artistic creations and even more so insight into the intensity of their friendship. Now that Pontormo and Bronzino have been introduced- alongside the context of Strehlkes, :Pontormo, Bronzino and the Medici; The transormation of the Renaissance Portrat in Florence," Reaserch Entry II will dive more deeply into their artistic transformation and the political movements of that time that influenced their growth.

Sources

Strehlke, Carl B. Pontormo, Bronzino and the Medici: The transformation of the Renaissance Portrait in Florence.

http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/pontormo1.html

http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/bronzino1.html

Leonardo and Michealangelo- Readings from Blunt's Artistic Theories in History...

       “The basis of Leonardo’s scientific observations, which covered every branch of the study of
        natural phenomena- zoology, anatomy, botany, geology, as well as mechanical and
        mathematical problems- was a profound belief in the value of experiment and of direct
        observation. It was by what he actually saw- in the human body, in plants, or in the formation
        of rocks- that he entirely outstripped his contemporaries, even the experts in the various
        siences which he studied.” (Blunt 24).

       What we know of Leonardo came from the journals he had written and that are now in private and public collections. Driven by his faith in the material world and the evidence from the senses, he became a pioneer of many forward ways of thinking. Many of the facts he observed took centuries for them to be fitted into “mans scheme of the universe.” (Blunt 25). Leonardo used mathematical and scientific principles for the base of many of his observations, an aspect of his personality that carried into all parts of his life- including his paintings. “…The art of painting is to be judged by two standards: the certainty of its premises and methods, and the completeness of the knowledge represented by its productions;… the eye, the actual measurements, and principles of geometry.” (Blunt 26). To Leonardo, art represented nature, a kind of truth- which is why he favored the trade of painting as to sculpture- an art form that didn’t incorporate color- use aerial perspective, transparent subtleties and many other things. (Blunt 26). To Leonardo, all aspects of painting were science based and was and imitation of nature. “Those who devote themselves to practice without science are like sailors who put to sea without rudder of compass and who can never be certain where they are going. Practice must always be founded on sound theory.” (Blunt 27). He thought that it was knowledge that guided art, and it was disappointing to him when artists relied on tricks and short kicks for imitating nature. He also goes on to say that he recommends the painter always carry a mirror- to see if the reflection matches the painting- and not to attempt to improve upon it. He makes a comparison to Alberti- who focused on reflecting an ideal human form. Leonardo concentrates on the vast infinite ways to represent the human form- that proportions of a man are fixed- but the parts should be harmonious among themselves- you should not see, for instance, a woman’s hand on a muscular arm (Blunt 32). He also felt as though a painter should not devote themselves to imitating the manner of another painter - what will eventually lead the to exclusion of nature- mannerism (Blunt 33).


       Our sources for Michelangelo are varied. Poems show us the more direct look into his person, he also had several biographies- that unfortunately do not include some periods of his life and include, at times, conflicting stories (Blunt 58). It is rare however to have an artist who wrote (through his poems) exactly how he felt about his art.
       Michelangelo’s works changed over time. During the first period- his worlds reflected the ideals of High Renaissance Humanism- something clearly visible in his works in the Sistine Chapel. Unlike Leonardo, his aesthetic preference was towards beauty- rather than scientific truth- though he did study it and rely on it as a system of guidance (Blunt 59, 61). It is also fairly obvious that His faith played a huge roll in both how he conducted himself both in life and in art. Physical beauty to Michelangelo, was next to godliness and thus it became an important part of his work, “For Michelangelo it is by means of the imagination that the artist attains to a beauty above that of nature, and in this he appears as a Neo-Platonist. To him beauty is the reflection of the divine in the material world..” (Blunt 62).
       During Michelangelo’s second period of art- he paid less attention to physical beauty and instead he used it as a means of conveying and ideal (Blunt 66). His Last Judgment was seen by many as a failure. “The most fundamental principle of the High Renaissance seems here to have been neglected for there is little reconstruction of the real world, no real space, no perspective, no typical proportions. The artist is intent only on conveying an idea.. Through the means of a traditional Renaissance symbol, the human body. (Blunt 66). At this time- Michelangelo describes through poems that physical beauty passes away- it is a cheat (Blunt 66, 67).
       In the last two decades of Michelangelo’s life there is another change in his art and ideas. He begins to give up the idea of beauty as a symbol of the divine. By then, it is simply an idea that distracts from true faith.


       When I think of the Renaissance, the two huge names that immediately come to my mind are Leonardo and Michelangelo. To great men that lived in a world-changing period of time. Though the two were in the same trade, they could not- to me- be any different; neither greater or lesser than the other. Leonardo relied on the sciences and mathematics to guide all of his endevors. To him, beauty was not something that could be created through the use of "smoke and mirrors," it was the use of a true understanding in nature that was the key to successfully guiding his mind and art. Michelangelo saw things slightly differently. To him the idea of beauty began as something skin deep (more so figuratively than litterally). Beauty was a link to godliness. His art went through several transitions- all of which seemed to correlate to upset within the church-transitions that eventually lead him to believe that beauty was distracting from the truth- which to simplify things drastically- was faith.
      

Who is Leonardo? A review of Gopnik's article...

                Adam Gopnik’s article to me, felt like a book review (I am unaware of the actually context of the article). He begins his adventure into the mystery of Leonardo by introducing the idea of a story that he wrote as a teenager. Enthralled by the man who was the father of so many inventions and undoubtedly way ahead of his time, he writes about how strangely un-human the man truly was. “To make a long, and rather shamelessly rod Serlingish, story short, the art historian (Adam) eventually discovers, in a previously unknown codex that Leonardo was an alien, that the rocks were the landscape of his native planet, and that the fingers were pointing longingly back home.” (Gopnik, 1)

                Gopnik also dove into the readings by some of the current popular books about Leonardo. Nicholl’s, “Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind” and Kemp’s “Leonardo”.  He outlines the main difference of these two books being primarily their perspective; Kemps from the inside out, Nicholl’s from the outside in.
                Kemp’s strategy of decoding Leonardo was to “define what he thought Leonardo was doing, and why” (Gopnik, 1). Suggesting that what Leonardo was searching for was a universal system of proportion- beyond the aesthetic.  Kemp writes, “Leonardo was the first to tie the artist’s nothing of proportional beauty into the wider setting of the proportional action of all the powers of nature.” (Gopnik, 2) He also suggested that the thought processes driving Leonardo’s research were based on a visual intellect, as compared to a mathematical one.

 

                Nicholl’s account of Leonardo was much different. His book follows the restless activities of Leonardo during what he describes as a “lucky life”. Gopnik seemed to favor Nicholl’s approach by describing it as worldly narrative, detailed, vivid and human (Gopnik, 2). He dives into the complexity of Leonardo’s thoughts and how he created himself an image that the patrons pursued. Personally, I find his notebooks fascinating and have added this book to my reading wish list.

               

                “Nicholl makes Leonardo not less strange, perhaps, but surprisingly more appealing and well rounded—not a spaceman but an artistic type whose lineaments one recognizes: the artist as     self-sufficient man, with a strong, private sense of ironic humor, affectionate but not much          engaged with his family and lovers, devoted to the realization of this images, surrounded by a court of helpers and hangers- on whom he watches with detached amusement… (Gopnik, 2).

                Gopnik also dived briefly into the DaVinci code calling it, “plain burn-at-the-stake blasphemous,” (Gopnik, 4). Another, a personal thought; I find this hilarious, because I thought it was a terrible movie and it completely turned me off of wanting to read the book.

                Gopnik ends his review by recapping the achievements that Leonardo made. He also creates for us a timeline of large movements and reminding us that much of Leonardo’s work was unavailable to the masses for centuries. He Ask us to question how much he actually provided us for some large movements- including the scientific revolution or the Renaissance.  

                It is no surprise to me that a one-of-a-kind man probably lived a one-of-a-kind life.  The truth is, we tear apart his words, his scribbles, and his paintings. Everyone has an opinion or a point of view of who Leonardo really was as a man. But truthfully, no one really knows for sure. Maybe that is one of the things about the man that makes him so great to us today. Perhaps we just want to know the secret that made him so great. Maybe he didn’t contribute so much to these giant movements that we previously have given him credit for. But, maybe instead- he was the pioneer for the people- to at least plant seeds in their heads to let them know that great things can happen when you think or do things a little differently; or even by just doing things for yourself- the things that you love.

                His ideas in many ways were groundbreaking. He was the first great mind to try so many things that no one else had ever done before. He scribbled inventions in the margins of his notebooks that work perfectly several hundred years later and managed to capture a smile in a painting that still resonates. Who wouldn't want to know his secrets?