DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0037
PERUGIA
which was good of the kind demanded. He was untroubled by
preoccupations of the value either of his art as a whole or of the
particular form of art which he professed, and whatever his secret
ideals may have been, the custom of his profession and the
commands of his patrons determined him in the execution of
his ideas. In this way he was the typical painter of the fifteenth
century, the product of the guilds and confraternities whose trade
was modest but joyful, and whose methods were sanctioned by
a tradition as strong as the religion which in their innocence they
conceived to be closely enwound with their technique. No
schooling could be better for a man strong enough ultimately
to break loose from its effects and able to regard it as a discipline
and not as a whole rule of life. But, as must happen, the virtues
of the system are accompanied by no small vices. The school of
Perugino, like the schools of all the masters of Italy, lived not
only through the execution of masterpieces, but also by the
production of countless pictures which are mere echoes of genuine
and intelligent work. Virtuosity may have its disadvantages, but
it is superior to conventional art in that, its patrons being fewer
and its exponents more self-restricted, each work produced is an
effort of greater thought. Popularity in art necessarily produces
the vulgar picture, a work in which one feature only is exaggerated
at the expense of all. Nor is this a mere accident. Art which is
based upon notions so widespread that they can be termed popular
must necessarily produce works, among others, which contain
nothing but the single element which earns them popularity.
The galleries of Italy are witnesses that in the strongest epochs
the amount of vulgar work was as great as in any other. There
is scarcely a painter whose work was not parodied by the cheaper
labourers in his studio, and if those of the fifteenth century still
retain some charm for the present day as they did for the less
critical of their contemporaries, while those of a later date are
hopelessly out of fashion and unappreciated, the reason lies, of
course, in the fact that even the commonest of such reproductions
15
which was good of the kind demanded. He was untroubled by
preoccupations of the value either of his art as a whole or of the
particular form of art which he professed, and whatever his secret
ideals may have been, the custom of his profession and the
commands of his patrons determined him in the execution of
his ideas. In this way he was the typical painter of the fifteenth
century, the product of the guilds and confraternities whose trade
was modest but joyful, and whose methods were sanctioned by
a tradition as strong as the religion which in their innocence they
conceived to be closely enwound with their technique. No
schooling could be better for a man strong enough ultimately
to break loose from its effects and able to regard it as a discipline
and not as a whole rule of life. But, as must happen, the virtues
of the system are accompanied by no small vices. The school of
Perugino, like the schools of all the masters of Italy, lived not
only through the execution of masterpieces, but also by the
production of countless pictures which are mere echoes of genuine
and intelligent work. Virtuosity may have its disadvantages, but
it is superior to conventional art in that, its patrons being fewer
and its exponents more self-restricted, each work produced is an
effort of greater thought. Popularity in art necessarily produces
the vulgar picture, a work in which one feature only is exaggerated
at the expense of all. Nor is this a mere accident. Art which is
based upon notions so widespread that they can be termed popular
must necessarily produce works, among others, which contain
nothing but the single element which earns them popularity.
The galleries of Italy are witnesses that in the strongest epochs
the amount of vulgar work was as great as in any other. There
is scarcely a painter whose work was not parodied by the cheaper
labourers in his studio, and if those of the fifteenth century still
retain some charm for the present day as they did for the less
critical of their contemporaries, while those of a later date are
hopelessly out of fashion and unappreciated, the reason lies, of
course, in the fact that even the commonest of such reproductions
15