DOI Artikel:
Kuusamo, Altti: Aby Warburg’s missing ladies: The exclusion of mid-16th century nymphs
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.59426#0065
64
Francesco Salviati (1510-1563) didn’t appear to be a virtu-
oso, as he may be for us today, when we have a better con-
servation arsenal and good colour photos in our use. Now
we can easily think that Salviati as a draughtsman was al-
most comparable to Michelangelo. In that way times are
changing and we know that every age chooses its own art-
ists from the history of art - and yet this does not mean
that we must be anachronists in Didi-Hubermans sense.6
The problem of the atmosphere of the age was not an
important factor for Warburg. During his stay in Rome
in 1928-1929 he seemingly found much delight in reading
Giordano Bruno.7 Rightly or wrongly, he was not inter-
ested in the art of Brunos time, not only because his theo-
ry of pathos formulas implies more continuity (meaning:
synchrony) than radical diachrony (a spirit of the ages),
but also because he evidently disliked the imagery of the
late Renaissance. Taste is a tricky thing; it even affects how
important we consider the pathos formulas of certain pe-
riods.
One might hope that the idea behind Warburgs Ge-
bärdensprache, the gesture language of an image, and an
interest in shaping the history of pathos formulas would
be independent of the changes and differences in chang-
ing aesthetic tastes. However, at the beginning of the 20th
century this kind of open attitude towards mid-i6th centu-
ry art was difficult even for those who were independent
of the so-called “eternal aesthetic values”, or formalists
like Bernard Berenson and Tionello Venturi, whose stan-
dards were heavily dependent on the art of the so-called
“primitive painters” before Raphael.8 Despite the fact that
Warburg detested Berensons formalism,9 he shared the
same distaste for art after the High Renaissance, more or
less. This meant: the age of Mannerism. In his old age Be-
renson made an exception. On October 29,1950 he visited
for the first time Francesco Salviati’s exuberant frescoes
in the Palazzo Sacchetti in Rome. It seemed that he got
a small clue of the relativity of taste,10 * whereas Warburg
6 See G. Didi-Huberman, ‘Before the Image, before Time: The So-
vereignity of Anachronism’, in Compelling Visuality, ed. C. Farago,
R. Zwijnenberg, Minneapolis-London, 2003, pp. 35-38.
7 See A. Warburg, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 7: Tagebuch der Kul-
turwissenschaftlichen Bibliothek Warburg, Berlin, 2001, pp. 394-
396.
8 See B. Berenson, The Italian Painters of the Renaissance, New
York, 1957 [1896], pp. 62, 64, 70-71; L. Venturi, Il gusto dei pri-
mitivi, Bologna, 1926; G. Previtali, La fortuna dei primitivi. Dal
Vasari ai Neoclassici, Torino, 1989, passim.
9 See C. Wedepohl, ‘Berenson and Aby Warburg, absolute oppo-
sites’, in Bernard Berenson, ed. J. Connors, L.A. Waldman, Cam-
bridge, 2014, pp.157-167; see also: A. Kuusamo, ‘The Idea of Art
as a Form Behind Tactile Values: The Recuperation of Art in Art
History c. 100 Years Ago’, in Towards a Science of Art History.
ƒ. ƒ. Tikkanen and Art Historical Scholarship in Europe, ed. J. Vak-
kari, Helsinki, 2009, pp. 122-124.
10 B. Berenson, The Passionate Sightseer: From the Diaries 1947-
-1956, London, i960, p. 25.
had no time for the kind of late Renaissance imagery in
Rome; life was short and he had to construct the Mnemo-
syne-Atlas project.
THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CONCEPT
OF THE PATHOS FORMULA
In order to understand why Aby Warburg never used
his famous concept of the Pathosformel to describe the
pathetic or emotional pictorial forms of Mannerism, we
have to ponder the supposed elasticity of the concept.
Warburgs concept of the pathos formula (Pathosform-
eï) was from the beginning linked to the pictorial form of
a striding nymph in Ghirlandaio’s Birth of John the Bap-
tist (1485-1490) [Fig. 1]. The first time this connection
was to be seen was in his Ninfa Fiorentina -file, in “Nym-
phenfragment” from the year 1900.11 According to Clau-
dia Wedepohl, Warburg most obviously used the concept
Pathosformel for the first time in this famous file.12 Right
from the beginning the associative area of the concept
was applicable to a large number of nymphs, from Salome
to Judith, and even to the archangel Gabriel.13 Later the
formula could contain a rather large arsenal of different
emotional charges, which can be “illogical” and “primi-
tive” or which can unite Apollonian and Dionysian as-
pects of existence - and show the maximum of inner in-
citements (“maximales inneres Ergriffensein”),14 and in
that way could signify the intensification of existence.15 As
Moshe Barasch states, Warburg never defined the concept
clearly or unambiguously.16
In his 2007 book Ninfe Giorgio Agamben defines Pa-
thosformeln as relatively autonomous hybrids of archi-
types or “hybrids of matter and form” {materia e forma)
which own both “laprimavoltità e repetizione”.17 In almost
the same way Claudia Wedepohl speaks of the two parts
of the “Pathosformel” (“emotional Pathos and rational
11 A. Warburg, A. Jolles. Warburg Institute Archive, WIA III,55.1.
Ninfa Fiorentina, 1900.
12 C. Wedepohl, ‘Wort und Bild: Aby Warburg als Sprachbildner
der Besonnenheit’, in Ekstatische Kunst, p. 25 (as in note 3); cf. ea-
dem, ‘Pathos - Polarität - Distanz - Denkraum. Eine archivari-
sche Spurensuche’, in Denkraum. Formen, M otive, Materialen.
Trajekte. Eine Reihe des Zentrums für Literatur- und Kulturfor-
schung, ed. S. Weigel, K. Barek, München, 2014, p. 36 (see: ref. 19).
13 Cf. A. Warburg, WIA 111,55-2 [1].
14 A. Warburg, ‘Einleitung’, p. 171 (as in note 5). Cf. C. Wedepohl,
‘Pathos - Polarität - Distanz - Denkraum’, p. 34 (as in note 12).
15 See G. Careri, ‘Pathosformein. Aby Warburg e 1’intensificazione
delle immagini”, in Aby Warburg e le metamorfosi degli antichi dèi,
ed. M. Bertozzi, Ferrara, 2002, p. 51.
16 M. Barasch, “‘Pathosformulae”. Some Reflections on the Struc-
ture of a Concept’, in idem, Imago Hominis. Studies in the Lan-
guage of Art, Vienna, 1991, p. 124.
17 G. Agamben, Ninfe, p. 17 (as in note 1).
Francesco Salviati (1510-1563) didn’t appear to be a virtu-
oso, as he may be for us today, when we have a better con-
servation arsenal and good colour photos in our use. Now
we can easily think that Salviati as a draughtsman was al-
most comparable to Michelangelo. In that way times are
changing and we know that every age chooses its own art-
ists from the history of art - and yet this does not mean
that we must be anachronists in Didi-Hubermans sense.6
The problem of the atmosphere of the age was not an
important factor for Warburg. During his stay in Rome
in 1928-1929 he seemingly found much delight in reading
Giordano Bruno.7 Rightly or wrongly, he was not inter-
ested in the art of Brunos time, not only because his theo-
ry of pathos formulas implies more continuity (meaning:
synchrony) than radical diachrony (a spirit of the ages),
but also because he evidently disliked the imagery of the
late Renaissance. Taste is a tricky thing; it even affects how
important we consider the pathos formulas of certain pe-
riods.
One might hope that the idea behind Warburgs Ge-
bärdensprache, the gesture language of an image, and an
interest in shaping the history of pathos formulas would
be independent of the changes and differences in chang-
ing aesthetic tastes. However, at the beginning of the 20th
century this kind of open attitude towards mid-i6th centu-
ry art was difficult even for those who were independent
of the so-called “eternal aesthetic values”, or formalists
like Bernard Berenson and Tionello Venturi, whose stan-
dards were heavily dependent on the art of the so-called
“primitive painters” before Raphael.8 Despite the fact that
Warburg detested Berensons formalism,9 he shared the
same distaste for art after the High Renaissance, more or
less. This meant: the age of Mannerism. In his old age Be-
renson made an exception. On October 29,1950 he visited
for the first time Francesco Salviati’s exuberant frescoes
in the Palazzo Sacchetti in Rome. It seemed that he got
a small clue of the relativity of taste,10 * whereas Warburg
6 See G. Didi-Huberman, ‘Before the Image, before Time: The So-
vereignity of Anachronism’, in Compelling Visuality, ed. C. Farago,
R. Zwijnenberg, Minneapolis-London, 2003, pp. 35-38.
7 See A. Warburg, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 7: Tagebuch der Kul-
turwissenschaftlichen Bibliothek Warburg, Berlin, 2001, pp. 394-
396.
8 See B. Berenson, The Italian Painters of the Renaissance, New
York, 1957 [1896], pp. 62, 64, 70-71; L. Venturi, Il gusto dei pri-
mitivi, Bologna, 1926; G. Previtali, La fortuna dei primitivi. Dal
Vasari ai Neoclassici, Torino, 1989, passim.
9 See C. Wedepohl, ‘Berenson and Aby Warburg, absolute oppo-
sites’, in Bernard Berenson, ed. J. Connors, L.A. Waldman, Cam-
bridge, 2014, pp.157-167; see also: A. Kuusamo, ‘The Idea of Art
as a Form Behind Tactile Values: The Recuperation of Art in Art
History c. 100 Years Ago’, in Towards a Science of Art History.
ƒ. ƒ. Tikkanen and Art Historical Scholarship in Europe, ed. J. Vak-
kari, Helsinki, 2009, pp. 122-124.
10 B. Berenson, The Passionate Sightseer: From the Diaries 1947-
-1956, London, i960, p. 25.
had no time for the kind of late Renaissance imagery in
Rome; life was short and he had to construct the Mnemo-
syne-Atlas project.
THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CONCEPT
OF THE PATHOS FORMULA
In order to understand why Aby Warburg never used
his famous concept of the Pathosformel to describe the
pathetic or emotional pictorial forms of Mannerism, we
have to ponder the supposed elasticity of the concept.
Warburgs concept of the pathos formula (Pathosform-
eï) was from the beginning linked to the pictorial form of
a striding nymph in Ghirlandaio’s Birth of John the Bap-
tist (1485-1490) [Fig. 1]. The first time this connection
was to be seen was in his Ninfa Fiorentina -file, in “Nym-
phenfragment” from the year 1900.11 According to Clau-
dia Wedepohl, Warburg most obviously used the concept
Pathosformel for the first time in this famous file.12 Right
from the beginning the associative area of the concept
was applicable to a large number of nymphs, from Salome
to Judith, and even to the archangel Gabriel.13 Later the
formula could contain a rather large arsenal of different
emotional charges, which can be “illogical” and “primi-
tive” or which can unite Apollonian and Dionysian as-
pects of existence - and show the maximum of inner in-
citements (“maximales inneres Ergriffensein”),14 and in
that way could signify the intensification of existence.15 As
Moshe Barasch states, Warburg never defined the concept
clearly or unambiguously.16
In his 2007 book Ninfe Giorgio Agamben defines Pa-
thosformeln as relatively autonomous hybrids of archi-
types or “hybrids of matter and form” {materia e forma)
which own both “laprimavoltità e repetizione”.17 In almost
the same way Claudia Wedepohl speaks of the two parts
of the “Pathosformel” (“emotional Pathos and rational
11 A. Warburg, A. Jolles. Warburg Institute Archive, WIA III,55.1.
Ninfa Fiorentina, 1900.
12 C. Wedepohl, ‘Wort und Bild: Aby Warburg als Sprachbildner
der Besonnenheit’, in Ekstatische Kunst, p. 25 (as in note 3); cf. ea-
dem, ‘Pathos - Polarität - Distanz - Denkraum. Eine archivari-
sche Spurensuche’, in Denkraum. Formen, M otive, Materialen.
Trajekte. Eine Reihe des Zentrums für Literatur- und Kulturfor-
schung, ed. S. Weigel, K. Barek, München, 2014, p. 36 (see: ref. 19).
13 Cf. A. Warburg, WIA 111,55-2 [1].
14 A. Warburg, ‘Einleitung’, p. 171 (as in note 5). Cf. C. Wedepohl,
‘Pathos - Polarität - Distanz - Denkraum’, p. 34 (as in note 12).
15 See G. Careri, ‘Pathosformein. Aby Warburg e 1’intensificazione
delle immagini”, in Aby Warburg e le metamorfosi degli antichi dèi,
ed. M. Bertozzi, Ferrara, 2002, p. 51.
16 M. Barasch, “‘Pathosformulae”. Some Reflections on the Struc-
ture of a Concept’, in idem, Imago Hominis. Studies in the Lan-
guage of Art, Vienna, 1991, p. 124.
17 G. Agamben, Ninfe, p. 17 (as in note 1).