DOI article:
Maśliński, Antoni: Zagadnienie Manieryzmu
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27670#0080
74
A. MAŚLIŃSKI
ling provided by the figure of Madonna among the elouds brightened by Aurora Bore-
alis-like light. Outstanding achievement can be found in the work of such artists as
Salviati, Perino del Vaga, Primaticcio, Orsi and others, to mention only these whose
paintings have been analyzed in the book. The contrast between the finest and the
average, however, is much more marked in Mannerism than in the Renaissance. The
Nativity by Paolo Cespedes and Cesare Arbasia (1559/66: Rome, S. Trinita dei Monti)
is a masterpiece. The authors are considered Mannerists but is their work Mannerist
in chracter? The colour is cool within subdued lilac-bluish range and the subtlety of
artistic means of expression corresponds to the harmony of shades. The composition
is equally harmonious while the lyrical moods dominate the contents of the picture.
The profile of the kneeling Madonna, her beautiful face and fine hands with long,
delicate fingers are outlined with extreme clarity. What are the Mannerist features
of the painting? The beautiful female hands painted by other Mannerists as well?
The impression that the fresco is in a minor key?
What are then the achievements of Mannerist art? In its very essence it was
not constructive. When admiring some aspects of Mannerist painting, łine in parti-
cular, we are struck by certain triviality and artificiality. Mannerist art is abundant
in metaphor, „garrulous”, sophisticated (concettismo), more than any other style foun-
ded on intellectual preconception which seems to be its true source rather than visual
preception of the world. The colour is both crude and dry, vivid and harsh, the poses
strained, the forlm unsucces:sfully aims to imitate great Renaissance masters. All these
factors often contribute to caricature-like effects, e.g. in Gulio Romano, Domenico
Beccafumi or Pellegrino Tibaldi. Mannerists were able neither to glorify the beauty
of life or to create some synthesis as the Renaissance or Baroąue artists did. The
deformity and distortion of reality prevailing in Mannerist art lacked the strength
and consistency of Tintoretto ancl E1 Greco which excludes both great visionaries as
well as Michelangelo from Mannerism according to W. Friedlander, Ch. de To-lnay, E.
Panofsky, M. Tafuri and others. In spite of certain features they share with Manne-
rists, what is creative and individual in the great masters changes into imitative,
artificial and often spiritually sterile in their followers. This seerns to be the very
essence of Mannerism. Already Vasari, himself a practitioner, criticized his fellow-
-painters although he was not aware of the distinctive icharacter of the style and the
very notion of Mannerism. Still, these were Michelangelo and Raphael who were known
as the „Divine” and not any of Mannerists (Vasari, Francesco da Hollanda). As
early as the next generation Mennerists were critcized and their are became a
side cuiTent. Its transiency has been provecl by the history. Elsewhere art had been
developing within several stylistic formation up to the enćl of the nineteenth century.
Certain parallels to Mannerist art and the scholary recognition of the distinct cha-
racter of the style appeared as late as the present century. M. Dvorak initiated proper
appreciation of Mannerism which led to its expansion and subseąuent chaos. Lately,
however, critics began to sound scepticał and in some cases the term itself was
abandoned.
The present analysis of Mannerist painting and sculpture has been deliberately
complemented by the review of the hitherto accomplished research to view properly
the evolving opinions. A great many studies have been devoted to Mannerist art.
So many features have been distinguished but there is nouniformity of opinion con-
cerning either division into periods or stylistic and forlmal system or the sources and
ideological contents. We even do not know whether there was one Mannerism or
more, not only north of the Alps, but in Italy itself. No other movement has given
rise to such a divergence of opinion. Could all the great scholars of fifty years ago be
A. MAŚLIŃSKI
ling provided by the figure of Madonna among the elouds brightened by Aurora Bore-
alis-like light. Outstanding achievement can be found in the work of such artists as
Salviati, Perino del Vaga, Primaticcio, Orsi and others, to mention only these whose
paintings have been analyzed in the book. The contrast between the finest and the
average, however, is much more marked in Mannerism than in the Renaissance. The
Nativity by Paolo Cespedes and Cesare Arbasia (1559/66: Rome, S. Trinita dei Monti)
is a masterpiece. The authors are considered Mannerists but is their work Mannerist
in chracter? The colour is cool within subdued lilac-bluish range and the subtlety of
artistic means of expression corresponds to the harmony of shades. The composition
is equally harmonious while the lyrical moods dominate the contents of the picture.
The profile of the kneeling Madonna, her beautiful face and fine hands with long,
delicate fingers are outlined with extreme clarity. What are the Mannerist features
of the painting? The beautiful female hands painted by other Mannerists as well?
The impression that the fresco is in a minor key?
What are then the achievements of Mannerist art? In its very essence it was
not constructive. When admiring some aspects of Mannerist painting, łine in parti-
cular, we are struck by certain triviality and artificiality. Mannerist art is abundant
in metaphor, „garrulous”, sophisticated (concettismo), more than any other style foun-
ded on intellectual preconception which seems to be its true source rather than visual
preception of the world. The colour is both crude and dry, vivid and harsh, the poses
strained, the forlm unsucces:sfully aims to imitate great Renaissance masters. All these
factors often contribute to caricature-like effects, e.g. in Gulio Romano, Domenico
Beccafumi or Pellegrino Tibaldi. Mannerists were able neither to glorify the beauty
of life or to create some synthesis as the Renaissance or Baroąue artists did. The
deformity and distortion of reality prevailing in Mannerist art lacked the strength
and consistency of Tintoretto ancl E1 Greco which excludes both great visionaries as
well as Michelangelo from Mannerism according to W. Friedlander, Ch. de To-lnay, E.
Panofsky, M. Tafuri and others. In spite of certain features they share with Manne-
rists, what is creative and individual in the great masters changes into imitative,
artificial and often spiritually sterile in their followers. This seerns to be the very
essence of Mannerism. Already Vasari, himself a practitioner, criticized his fellow-
-painters although he was not aware of the distinctive icharacter of the style and the
very notion of Mannerism. Still, these were Michelangelo and Raphael who were known
as the „Divine” and not any of Mannerists (Vasari, Francesco da Hollanda). As
early as the next generation Mennerists were critcized and their are became a
side cuiTent. Its transiency has been provecl by the history. Elsewhere art had been
developing within several stylistic formation up to the enćl of the nineteenth century.
Certain parallels to Mannerist art and the scholary recognition of the distinct cha-
racter of the style appeared as late as the present century. M. Dvorak initiated proper
appreciation of Mannerism which led to its expansion and subseąuent chaos. Lately,
however, critics began to sound scepticał and in some cases the term itself was
abandoned.
The present analysis of Mannerist painting and sculpture has been deliberately
complemented by the review of the hitherto accomplished research to view properly
the evolving opinions. A great many studies have been devoted to Mannerist art.
So many features have been distinguished but there is nouniformity of opinion con-
cerning either division into periods or stylistic and forlmal system or the sources and
ideological contents. We even do not know whether there was one Mannerism or
more, not only north of the Alps, but in Italy itself. No other movement has given
rise to such a divergence of opinion. Could all the great scholars of fifty years ago be