A rebirth of Classical Ideas in the Renaissance was a Result

Vasari’s first edition of The Lives of the Artists, was published in 1550 and was largely a celebration of fellow painter and friend Michelangelo. For Vasari, quality was based primarily on the artist’s skill in the illusion of naturalism and the technical ability required to achieve a classical degree of idealized beauty. This kind of approach to art history creates problems because; it encourages the attribut

. . .

Giorgio Vasari, who wrote Lives of the Artists, was one of the first art historians and his tendencies towards a connoisseurship approach to “good art” had a resounding effect on art history following the death of Michelangelo, as it stifled artistic progress that inevitably led art back to Neo-Classicism. For art to have a history we expect not only a timeless quality but also some kind of sequence of progression, as this is what history leads us to expect. Did it stop or go into decline? Once the ‘pinnacle’ of perfection had been reached with Michelangelo’s, Sistine Chapel (1508-1512), where could art go? Was Caravaiggio’s, Baroque painting, Calling of Saint Matthew(1599-1600), a lesser expression of art or message about society because he rejected the dominant Mannerist style, and Renaissance idealism, in favor of greater Realism and dramatic painterly techniques, such as tenebrism and chiaroscuro (Adams 675-77)? Certainly it was not. ion of works of art to an artist and the influence of one artist on another, on the basis of stylistic similarities. If anything, Caravaggio’s portrayal of religious figures as though they were ordinary people was revolutionary as it made those figures more accessible and identifiable. The idea that events unfold towards an identified outcome, in this case classical ideals and in particular those of Michelangelo, is known as teleology, a concept not generally too useful in predicting long-term outcomes.

Another problem with Vasari’s trajectory of art history is the question of what happened to art after Michelangelo. Without knowing the events that came after what he prematurely determined was the ‘pinnacle’, it was impossible for him to take into account the idea of artistic progress beyond the classical forms that he came to idealize. It seems counterintuitive that artists, those alleged great thinkers touched with genius, would feel the need to coin a term of insult when an artist strayed from the classical into expression, either religious or self.

As the artists of Mannerism, the Baroque and the Rococo found new ways to express their message, it seems that someone would coin a new term of insult to describe that period of art. Furthermore, Vasari’s failure to do so implies that there is an end to art history.

Finally, to me, the biggest problem with art historians and casual students of art alike, assigning such importance to Vasari’s history of art is that he did not write with the benefit of hindsight. However, this is not the only problem with Vasari’s history of art as it relates to the progression from the Renaissance into Neo-Classicalism. They did this in part because Vasari’s positions went unchallenged and artists in different nations saw their fellow artists painting in a style that clearly was less natural and illusionary than the preceding Renaissance art.

Common topics in this essay:
Rococo French, Lives Artists, Michelangelo Vasari, Saint Matthew1599-1600, , Furthermore Vasaris, Baroque Rococo, Neo-Classicalism Vasaris, Michelangelo Buonarrati, art history, Giorgio Vasari, art historians, approach art, lives artists, artistic progress, towards connoisseurship approach, historians tendencies, connoisseurship approach, towards connoisseurship, wrote lives, artists art, connoisseurship approach art, tendencies towards connoisseurship, historians tendencies towards, art historians tendencies,

Approximate Word count = 697
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)

Already a member? Click here