Matsui 1

Was Mannerism More than Just a Tradition between

Renaissance and Baroque?

Emi Matsui

Matsui 2

In order to determine if Mannerism is a style of its

own equal to the Baroque and Renaissance or if it is merely

a transitional phase between them, one has to understand

what exactly Mannerism is. This is accomplished by learning

about the development of Mannerism, what aspects make it up

and about the artists, who practiced it. It is my belief

that although Mannerism does act in some ways as a bridge

between the Renaissance and Baroque that Mannerism can stand

on its own.

Mannerism coincided with a period of upheaval that

included such events as the Reformation, plague and sack of

Rome in 1527. After its beginning in central Italy around

1520, Mannerism spread to other regions of Italy and to

northern Europe. In Italy, however, it was most strongly

adhered to by artists in Florence and Rome. The character of

Mannerism has been long debated, and is often discussed

and/or judged, in relation to the High Renaissance that

immediately preceded it. Some scholars including, John

Shearman, see Mannerism as a reaction to Renaissance

classicism, while at the same time there are others, who

regard it as a logical extension of it. To the latter,

Mannerism is seen as a natural outgrowth of Michelangelo's

emphatic modeling and/or Raphael's refinement. At any rate

by 1600, Mannerists were criticized for having willfully

Matsui 3

broken the unity of classicism. Today, since classicism no

longer has a unique claim on "perfection," Mannerism emerges

more clearly as a link between the High Renaissance and the

emotionally charged and dynamic Baroque art that followed.

It is important to keep in mind that just because Mannerism

is a link between two other styles that does not make it any

less of a style on its own.

This argument has already been carried out as can be

seen in the following. Arnold Hauser said that Anti-

Classicism was such an important feature of Mannerism that

it was easy to error and regards it as a mere epilogue to

classical periods and thus a regularly recurrent phenomenon

in the history of styles. Heinrich Wolfflin described the

Baroque as a typically recurring trend, and accordingly

developed the theory that in almost every period throughout

the history of art a Classical phase is followed by a

Baroque one. In the same way Mannerism is regarded today as

a general stylistic tendency not bound to any specific

historical conditions, but as invariably appearing in

similar circumstances.1

Hauser’s Rebuttal to Wolfflin’s remarks was that there

could be no such thing, as a periodicity of that kind.

Because a regular recurrence of styles in the history of art,

Matsui 4

as every artistic style is to an extent the result of

preceding developments, and every development takes place at

a different phase of the total historical process there

could not be a cyclical pattern. The end of one phase is the

starting-point of the next, and every phase uses as its raw

material the work of its predecessor. This is taken

possession of, improved and transformed into something new.2

Mannerism can now be described in more detail. The term

Mannerism comes from the Italian maniera, which means,

"style." This leads to a direct translation of Mannerism as

the "stylish style," which fits because of the emphasis on

self-conscious artifice over realistic depiction. During the

sixteenth-century, artist and critic Vasari, a mannerist,

thought that great painting demanded the following three

things: 1) refinement, 2) richness of invention and 3)

virtuoso of technique. Based on these points, one can tell

that the artist’s intelligence was more important than his

attention to recreating observed details of nature. This

intellectual bias was a natural consequence of the new

societal status of artists. They ceased to be craftsmen and

became the equals of scholars and poets during a time period

that had a great admiration of elegance and complexity. This

1 & 2 Arnold Hauser, Mannerism: The Crisis of the Renaissance & the Origin of Modern Art (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1965) 37 & 38.

Matsui 5

artificial qualities of Mannerism--its bizarre, occasionally

acid color, its illogical use of space, the elongated

proportions and exaggerated physical characteristics of

figures in snaking poses--frequently created a feeling of

anxiety. These works appear strange and unsettling, despite

their superficial naturalism.

Mannerism, “a style of art developed in Florence that

is known as Mannerism or, as some would have it, Anti-

Classicism,”3 began with the idea of conscious rejection of

the normative and the natural through an almost exclusive

employment of rhythmic feeling. The High Renaissance’s

regular, symmetrical harmony of parts became unbearable to

those adhering to the anti-classical style. Thus there arose

a new beauty, no longer resting on real forms measurable by

the model or no forms idealized on this basis, but rather on

an inner artistic reworking of the basic harmonic

requirements. Walter Friedlaender states that

…with Raphael’s death classic art- the High

Renaissance- subsided, though to be sure, like the

‘divine’ Raphael himself it is immortal and will

always come to life again in a new form. Mannerism

is not a mere transition, not merely a conjection

between Renaissance and Baroque, but an

Matsui 6

independent age of style, autonomous and most

meaningful.4

As mentioned previously, Michelangelo is credited as

the greatest artist of the High Renaissance and as being

more or less the creator of the new style, Mannerism. By

general consensus of the books I have read, his first

distinctly Mannerist piece was The Medicean Madonna(fig.1).

He was working for the de Medici's again after having

painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for Pope Leo X.

Michelangelo created The Medicean Madonna(fig.1) in Florence.

It is at this time that the most distinctive point of

Mannerist sculpture appears the figura serpentina. This

allows for a variety of viewpoints to be interesting, rather

than only a singular frontal view as had previously been the

norm. It also created tension, which either implied movement

in progress or eminently followed motion. This sometimes

awkward twisting of the bodies required true mastery to

maintain a realistic result. The interior of the Medici

chapel in which the Madonna now rests was also largely

designed by Michelangelo thus there are a host of other

interesting statues. The statues of the two Medici brothers

3 Ernest T. DeWald, Italian Painting 1200-1600 (New York: Hacker Art Books, Inc., 1961) 553. 4 Walter Friedlander, Mannerism and Anti-Mannerism in Italian Painting (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957) 43.

Matsui 7

are the most striking in my opinion. Once again,

Michelangelo created this poised, deeply thoughtful style

that is so typical of him. Late in his life Michelangelo

attempted another Pietà(fig.2), this time being a group.

This group was not carved for a Pope or the de Medici, but

for Michelangelo himself. It is believed that the uppermost

figure, supporting the dead Christ is a self-portrait of the

master. Like many of his works, this statue is unfinished,

though one of his assistants tried to finish the

Magdalen(fig.2) after his death, but without achieving

Michelangelo's warmth. Although the work is unfinished, the

power of the composition shines through.

The 16th century did not consist entirely of

Michelangelo alone. Benvenuto Cellini and Giovanni da

Bologna are perhaps the best known Mannerists besides

Michelangelo.

Cellini’s life can be roughly divided into three

periods. The first, was spent mainly in Rome, nothing

survives except a few coins and medals and the impressions

of two large seals. During the second period from 1540-5, he

was in the service of Francis I of France, where he created

the famous salt-cellar of gold enriched with enamel,

exquisitely worked with two principal and many subsidiary

figures. This is considered to be the most important piece

Matsui 8

of goldsmith’s work that has survived from the Italian

Renaissance. He also made a large bronze relief, The Nymph

of Fontainebleau(fig.3) for the king. The remainder of

Cellini’s life was spent in Florence working for Cosimo I de

Medici, and it was in this period that he took up large-

scale sculpture whole-heartedly. The bronze Perseus(fig.4),

from 1545-54 is his masterpiece. His other sculptures

include The Apollo and Hyacinth(fig.5), Narcissus(fig.6) and

The Crucifix(fig.7) all in marble. His two portrait busts,

Bindo Altoviti(fig.8) and Cosimo I(fig.9) were made in

bronze. Their somewhat dry quality shows that the exquisite

precision of handling of his goldsmith’s work did not always

transfer easily to a larger scale. Because of his fame, many

pieces of metalwork have been attributed to him, but rarely

have these claims been confirmed.

Bologna was quite prolific and was probably the best

known artist to bridge the gap between Michelangelo and the

Baroque. More than anyone else before and for centuries to

follow Bologna believed that a statue should be a three-

dimensional work, enjoyable from all angles. Hence his

bodies twist more than Michelangelo's. His most outstanding

piece is The Rape of the Sabines(fig.10). Three figures

twisting upwards in such a way as to form a Spiral, allowing,

if not demanding, a 360 degree view of the work. Bologna's

Matsui 9

sculpture took on a flamboyant self-confidence, which

clearly proved him to have at least one foot firmly placed

in the next era, the Baroque. This goes to show how hard

Mannerist artists are to define, as perhaps the two greatest

among them, Michelangelo and Bologna appear to also belong

to other defined eras of sculpture.

Does Mannerism actually possess the qualities necessary

to be called its own style? “Mannerism rejected the clarity

and logic of the High Renaissance and substituted ambiguity

and intuition.”5 This helps to separate Mannerism from its

close ancestor the High Renaissance to some degree, and the

following will help to drive that wedge still deeper. “An

interpretation based on the concept of a reaction ‘against’

the prevailing classicizing style is but one possible way to

read Mannerism.”6 These two statements basically say what

should by now be very clear, Mannerism does of course come

from the High Renaissance, but there are clearly large

differences between the two.

Whether one subscribes to the notion that Mannerism was

a rebellion against classicism or a super refinement of the

Renaissance’s techniques, one cannot deny that Mannerism and

5 Edmund Eglinski, The Art of the Italian Renaissance (Dubuque Iowa: WM. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1968) 76. 6 John T. Paoletti and Gary M. Radke, Art in Renaissance Italy (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc., and Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2002) 378.

Matsui 10

High Renaissance are quite distinguishable. “Mannerism - A

style most commonly associated with the arts of central

Italy during the sixteenth century, characterized by its

extreme artificiality and elegance.”7 Perhaps, that

statement sums it up best, and who knows, without Mannerism

the Baroque may never have even happened. This last is

possibly truer than some would care to admit, especially if

one considers the influence that Bologna had on the Baroque.

The pre-eminent artists in the Baroque inherited an

interest in the classical tradition via Mannerism and were

deeply influenced by such masters as Michelangelo, Titian

and Raphael. However, in some other ways the Baroque can be

considered an Anti-Mannerist style as Friedlaender points

out in, “… an instinctive opposition was directed against

the spiritualism, which sought a deepening of content

through primitivism and spatial and corporeal abstraction.”8

Basically the Baroque saw a new emphasis upon Naturalism and

Emotionalism and a new boldness in combining different art

forms to achieve a complete balanced work of art. This in

turn strengthens the case for Mannerism being considered an

independent style, since it was influential enough that the

7 John T. Paoletti and Gary M. Radke, Art in Renaissance Italy (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc., and Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2002) 494. 8 Walter Friedlander, Mannerism and Anti-Mannerism in Italian Painting (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957) 50.

Matsui 11

artists of the Baroque both learned from it and rebelled

against it.

Matsui 12

Bibliography DeWald, Ernest T. Italian Painting 1200-1600. New York: Hacker Art Books, Inc., 1961. Eglinski, Edmund. The Art of the Italian Renaisance. Dubuque, Iowa: WM. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1968. Friedlander, Walter. Mannerism and Anti-Mannerism in

Italian Painting. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.

Hauser, Arnord. Mannerism: The Crisis of the Renaissance &

the Origin of Modern Art. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1965.

Paoletti, John T and Radke, Gary M. Art in Renaissance

Italy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc., and Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2002.

Shearman, John. Mannerism. New York: Penguin Books, 1967.

Matsui 13

(fig.1)

Matsui 14

(fig.2)

Matsui 15

(fig.3)

Matsui 16

(fig.4)

Matsui 17

(fig.5)

Matsui 18

(fig.6)

Matsui 19

(fig.7)

Matsui 20

(fig.8)

Matsui 21

(fig.9)

Matsui 22

(fig.10)