23.Richard Wood Field- On the Emergence of Aesthetics

8/8/2019 23.Richard Wood Field- On the Emergence of Aesthetics

1/11

ON THE EMERGENCEOF AESTHETICSRichardWoodfield

oNcEnNof this article is to conrribute towards an under-of the culrural conditions which led to the emergenceof aestherics.is not a topic which hasengaged he foremost attenrionof aestheticians,bccauserhe study of cultural phenomcna extends beyond thcboundariesof contemporary philosophical aestherics nd alsohere is an obvious diffcrence between identifying specific philo-issuesand asking why thcy should have arisen. An immediareaddressing iris particular topic, is that of identifying aof demarcation. s rnanyhistories f aestheticstarrwith andquity,recognizing that aesthetics merged as an autonomous philosophicaln the eightcenth ccrttury, tlr.eremust needsbe sonre differenceand modern attitudes owards thosephenomenawhich arew subjectsof aesrhericenquiry for the nodon of 'ernergence'to gainwill confine myself to the figurative arts, and will argue that rhef aestheticsn this sector estedupon radically changedviews ofsmtusof humanly createdvisual images. t may be the caseargument extends rorn the figurative arts across o rhe other arts,f rhar ropic is beyond the scopeof rhis arricle.In his scrninalpaper, On the Origins of "Aesthetic Disinterestedness",srated:

I waltt to trace the origins of 'disinterestcdness'and to show rhat they are to be foundwhere tlre origins of tnodcrtr aesthctic theory are ro be found, viz., in eighreenrh-ccntury Ilrit ish thought. They di d no t invent and never usc the words 'aeschetic'or'aesthetics',bu t ir is simply frivolous to allow this to decide who 'crcared' aesrherictheory. Thc British were the first to envision th e possibil iry of a philosophicaldiscipline,entbracing the srudy of all the arts, one which would be, moreover, autonomous,because rs strbject-nratter s not explicable by any other disciplines.And the Britishwcre the first ro act upon and realise his programme.Thc argument of this papcr is that thc nrotive idea in their thinking was 'disinrer-cstedness'.

which Stolnitz used o support his case s both rigorous an dalthough it was misinterpretedby Saisselinn his paper 'Cricicalon the Origins of Modern Aesthetics'.2 tolnitz analysed he waywhich thc concept of disinterestednessecameoperarive n philosophicalow ic transformed he ternrsof earl ierdiscussionsnd b...-.o contelnporarynotions of aesthctics. tolnitz paceSaisselin,


2/11

zr8 Oi.l TFIEEMERGENCE F AISTHETICSnrade no attempt to account for the cuir,rral condidons under which theconcept could have emerged, though he suggesred hat 'I t has its roots,indeed, in contcmporary controversies n erhics and religion, an d onlygradually does t take on the distinctly aestheticmeaningwhich we attach oic today'.3Saissclin'sltcrnative uggestionhat aestheticsmerged rom th cquarrel between he supporters f t he Ancientsand Moderns while being,ro my rnind, morc pcrtincnt o a discussion f the culturalconditions or theenrergenceof acsthctics,s vitiated by his failure to consider other, non-lirerary, artistic devcloprnents. n his statementdlat in order fbr aestheticsro emergc 'art had to be defended frorn religious morality and religiousdogma' he was on the right track, and his arguffIent supports Stolnitz's;but his srarcn-rcnrhar painting lived very wcll with religion,and the latrerperhapswas more of an issuewith literature' is very wide of the mark.However imp.'e113trthe Querellemay have been, and it was important, itsimportance recedeswhen we consider developmcnts n the history of thevisual arts during dre Renaissancend Reformation. There is a very strongcase or arguing that the release f th e visual mage into an autonomousworld took preccdcnce ve r the Querelle.An inrporrant catureof th e Italian Renaissanceas that it resulted n anefiorescenceof a specialist iterature on the visual arm which was quitedifrerent in quality and kind from that which had existed in 'WesternEurope before.{ ts novelty was that, in terms of a literary fornrat, it treatedpaiuting by imelfasan ntcllectualactivity defined n termsofits relationswiththe artcs ibcrales.s o antique or medieval artist attempted a Ctttwnentarii,as di d Gliibcrti; rl o previous writer attempteda biography like Manetti 'sVita di Filippodi ScrBrunellescond therewasnodring previouslycomparablero Vasari' V'ite e' piite ccllenti rchitetti,ittorietscultoritaliani the explanationfor the prcviousabsence f this type of literature s that before he Renaissancepainters and sculptors wcre regarded as rnanual workers. We know thatduring rhe middle ages,and suspect hat in antiquity, there were technicaimanualson thc practiceof painring; bu t thesediffer substantiallyro m th etypesof treatise temuring ronr Alberti's De pictura, he first Western arttheoretical ext.

Alberri's Dc pictura s particularly striking for its structuralsimilarity toarlrique rearises n literature; it marked a dramatic convergence f interestsbetrveena professionalhurnanistand practisirlgartists.6Alberti applied thep_rinciples f rheroric to the analysisof painting while, at the same time,-"irrr.itring a strong interest n the ways in which the painted nragecreatedit s el{ects.Hc rhouglit that a painting should operate as a 'window otr tonarurc', that it should strive to represent things seen' and that it should'please,instruct and move'. In short he believed that a painting shouldconsritutearl extensionof the phenomenalworld, and that by it s contents,tcs storid, t should affect human behaviour. He held that the artist should


3/11

RICHARDWOODFIELD 2reikc rhescienrist, ptician or anatonrist,who had o examine hc appearance

world, and should associate ith writers, who had to study thc way inmen's houghc was exemplified n their behaviour; this was necessary

a si mularion of realiry and constructionof a drama which would directcnhancc he conduct of life. It is well lcnown that his nrajor successor s

art thcoreticianwa s Leonardoda Vinci, who wrote:If p''og11r'reats f nroral hilosophy,ainting as o do with natural hilosophy.fpocrrydescribcshe workings f themind,painting onsidershe workings f thenrind as cflectcd n thc nlovcrlrerltsof thc body. If poetry can terrify people by fictionsof hcll, painting can do as rnuch by sctting the sanrc hings before the eye. Suppose hepocr is scr against he painter ro represent beauty, tcrror, or a basc, trgly, monstrousrhing, whatcvcr rh c fornrs lre nray in hi s way producc, th c paintcr wiil satisfy he more.Have wc not scenpicturcsso closcly resernbling he actual hing that they have deceivedboth nren and bcasts.?

Alberd had developeda thcory whereby the spectator ould analyseof the piccorial ranre,Leonardo was his peer irl developing a

which would rnatch the objectsand processes ithin thevision,Ebut both wcre conmitted to the doctrine that the propcrof arr was to simulate reality; neither fclt that the work of art had ancxistencc, hat it constitured m own world inherently separate

reality.he cricicalself-consciousucssf Alberti and Leonardo, the generalof painting in quattrocentolorenceand, by extension, the rest ofas t had been for millenia. Figurative mages

a phenomenalextensionof th e real world into the intangiblerealworld beyond; drcy carried he sameperceptual urdenphotographic image does oday.

he contcmporary phorographic mage operates s he mediator between,d document oe our own immediate environments and rh.osewhich we

as mportant, fascinatingor interesting.Tlre consciously onstructedmage affectsour knowledge of the world, directs our beliefs

d behaviour, as well as afrording pleasure; he same s true of the pre-usc of the figurative irnage. As we know that the photographicmay be falsified, ou r criterion for accepting the authenticiry of a

irnage is based uporl notions of temporal and physiognomicn the pre-modern world, consistencywas obmined by the

of verbal and visual tradition which emphasised, mong otherhe continuum bctwccn thc physicalworld and the world beyond;hc tradidons o be shattered or the authenticity of the image

Rur at the sarne ime, i{, by sheer nterest n the nature ofimage itsclf, thc spectator ost concern with what it represented, he

of the image would becomemarginal to its appreciation.Bchind the creation of a 'phenomenalextension of the real world' lay a


4/11

}2O N THE EMERGENCE F AESTHETICScolnmitnrcnt to tlr.e otion of the instrumental ft icacy f visual magcry inthe developmentan d enhancement f human life. Frances atcshaspointedout rhat:

In rnedicval hcory, as aid down in part icularby Thonras Aquinas, nlar l 'snarure s soconstituted that he cannot renrernber intellectual or spiritual conceprs save throughnraterial iuragcs. Io rnake hirn grasp an abstraction, such as thc vice of avarice, onctnust show hinr the intage of a nriser, perirapsholding a ba g of money, an avariciousnran. To indicare o him an absrractionsuchas he virtue of charity, one nrust show hinran attractive hunran figurc, a wonran, exemplifying or exercising his virrue.

These arc very sirnple examples of the principle of teaching rnan about rhe intell i-gibil ia through rhe sensibil ia hich is at thc root of medieval didactic art. To rnake manfear and avoid the sinswhich lcad hirn to hell, one shows hirn hateful irnagesof sinsandthe grcacdoonr paintingsor sculptures f the LascJudgernentwith their countlcss iguresof the danrncd. Or to lcad him towards paradise,one shows the glorious vision of thelifc of th c blcsscd n hcavcn, rhe reward of virtue. The iuragination is allowed to fornruarcrial rrragcs, ruagcs rorrr the world of sense, ecauset is only through such nragesthat nran can bc raught, and nradc to remenber, the higher intell igible trurhs.e

But, and rhis s a point drar Yatesdid not make, rhe efficacyof prc-modernfigurative arts rested uporl a particular psychological effect of their sub-stitutionalnaturc.Th c principlcof substitutiorl asbeenelaborated t lengthby Gombrich ancl Bcrnhcimer;ro as the latte r pointed out, 'the functionnlosr akirl to rcpresclltati on s not, as the semanticist s uppose, hat ofsignification, ut thc rnuchncglected nd ittle known one of substit utiorr'.rrI{ as believe,Bernheirnerwas correct, the difrerencebetween ancient andnlodern approachcs owards the figurative arts ics n the way in which thefigurative magc assubstitutewas accepted nd appreciated. he figurativeartswere a potcrltrlrcarrs f directinghuman conduct hrough a rc-orderingof rncntalan d physical pacc.A nunrbcr of good storieswould illustrate hepre-ntodcnl nlentaliry, but wc will have to rest conrcnt witl that of St .Nilus, wh o recounted he miraculous escueof two men wh o addressedPrayerso sr. Plato:

Bothof tbern ad hcirpraycrseard,he achcrnhis ave n henrountain,he on ncaptivity,nd chold, urPlato uddenlyppearednhorsebackeforehe oungmanwho was then awake, bringing along another horse withouc a rider. The young manrecognized th e Saint becausehe had often seenhi s portrair on irnages.Straightaway[Plato] ordered hirrr ro arisc from among all rhe other [captives],and to mount th ehorsc; hi s fcrtcrs fcll apart l ike a spider's web, and he alone was dclivered b1 ,virtue ofh i sp r a y e r . . . . 1 2

For us, this story's nterest ie snot in the ancientexisterlce f miraclesbutin a mutual interactionof fantasy, igurarive irnagean d reality. St. Nilussaid hat th.eyoung man recognizedPlato frorn his picture; this s significantrestimony to the perceptualand ontological statusof the figurative arts inthe pre-modern world; either they were treatedasauthentic representationsor as ies. Neither thc visual products of the imagination nor their concrete


5/11

RICHARD WOODFIELD z 2 Ln thc frgurativc arts wcrc assigncd he statusof .fct ionas wet roday.Given widcsprcadbclicf in the authenticityof visions

d rhe cfticacy of image-rnagic, chc viability of a constructive notion ofwa s undarncnrally nc{ernrined.lrc f igurativeartspresenred icturcs

realirywhich couldbc acccptcd s ight or wrong, but neverasneither. heof ficrion prved thc way fo r .-lisintercsrcdnrerest,but it did nota subjcct or scrious nquiry until thc ciglrtecnth entury, especially

th e wrirings of Addison an d Burkc. Bcfore acsthetics ould emerge, heunction of art had to change; h c type of srory rcpreserlted y St.would have to losc its crcdibi l i ty and the medieval link betweetrnd sursi bilia ould havc to bc broken or reduced o play.

Th c figurativc arts playcd thc saurc nsrrunrcntal ole in men's publicd privatc livcs t quattrocurrolorenccas hey had before; the confusionof

wa sasstrollg as cvcr. Jut ic is wcll known that in Florcncea rnajoroccurred affccring hc social st:rtus f rh e artist an d the terms ofThrough thc quottlocetfi(),atrotrs' intercsts n anproclucrshiftcd fronr concerrlwith it s quality, as a picce of work-

o its characteras a displeyof mcntal ingcnuity; this change nof patrotlagcwas givctr addcd nrpctusby noti,rtrsof artisticProgrcssby artistsan d profcssional umanists.ra he notion of works of rrt

s dinronstraziortianle to a hcad in thc cinrytccctrtoith thc phenomcnonnown as Manncrisrn,rb nd it has been argued by fie Marxist historian

Hauscr,hat l:cchangcd ornnrodity unctionof art, nitiated n th equattrocentoand rcalizcd n Manttcrisnr, rarked hc elnergcnce f modern art.ls We havealreacly oted thet for Albcrri and Lconardo, wo primc represencativesf.ltnttrlccttto lorcncinc uhurc, although drc figurative arts werc to be rc-spccted or their intcl lcctual characrcr hey, nevcrthcless, orlstituted ancxrcnsionof thc pl'renonrcnal orld. Wc lrlust rlow examine he claim that\,lanncrisrn rcatcda brcak bcrwccn th c phcnomenalworlds of ar t and thespccrator, roducing he attitudeof disintecstcd ntercst.

Mannerisnr s sti l l a subjcct of heated debaceamongst art historians,dcspite hc wealth of literaturc published on it in the past five decades.Sonre historianshavc seenMamerisnr as constituting a rctreat from the'objecrivereality' of th e high Renaissanccnt o a subjective orrn of mystic-rsrn,cmbodying a stateof alienation ro m rh e realiries f mundane life;ochcrs avc sccn r as encapsulating orionsof refinenrent nd virtucsity, in;n appcal o the visual nterests f a learned liteof patrons; hese wo types,rf c'xplanation re nor necessarily utually exclusive.Whether or not there\\'asa profound spiritual crisisafter the Sackof Rome, which is doubtful, it is:rever[helessru e ha tmysticismwa sstill present nd ha t t wa sgiverr ashion-"bil i ty by the brand of Neoplatonismwhich had been o rged by MarsilioFrcinoan d his circle n Florence n th e quiltrocentcr.tTlthough Ficino neverEavculuchconsiderationo thevisualarrs,t isclear rom his writings thac he

i lt lr ti titilt ii lr !! it li lt l* ii li l; ll i

l li l! ll lt itIIIiitItiIIIiii


6/11

, ) ) ON THE EMERGENCEOF AESTHETICSfigurative imagc could excrcise powerful contemplative unction irr placingrh e specrator n contact with the divine world;rs for Ficino, the universeoperated by a hierarchic scriesof analogicemanations rorn God regularedby magical ties. Whilc hc subscribedo the doctrine of different evelsofpcrception, sdid his mysticalpredecessors,ree, ik e them, believed n theirultinratc ntcrrelati on. f any Mamerist art could be construed sernbodyingrnysticalnclinarions,his would havebcenquice n keepingwith fashionableinrercsts n Neoplatotrism.Although therc was some talk by Manneristrheorcticians f ihc

"rtistcreating-'new worlds', those ncw worlds were

intended o bcar a dircct orrtological elationshipo our own; it is strikingtlrat Lorn^zza's Trnttatodell'Artc della Pitnra, which Schlosscr escribed sManncristrr's't,( 'ralibbia', was castwithin thc rnould of hcrmericmagic.2oAs a forrn of artisticvirtuosity Mannerism appcalcd o spectators' cnse fingcnuity; ncithcr artist nor spectatorwould havc madescnse, owever, ofrhc trorion thar a propcr rcsponse o art was on e of disintcrestcdntcrest.Virtuosity was still a garnc which could be played within th e traditionalfraurcwork of th e crcarionof 'a phenomenalextensionof the real world'.We are,pcrhaps, oo caught up with the classicistonn of a 'rationalcon-structionof spacc' o crcdit he dramaricefficacy f Mannerist magcs nd oohistoricist o apprcciate he sense f continuity and literary tradition whichlay behind hc'novc'lty' of Manneristsubject' .While it may be granted hatirr tlre ciltquccuttohc artist emerged as a spcciallygifted person, whosccreatiorls ould be regarded as intellectually ewarding and placed on apa r with thoscof the writcr, t here s l imleevidence o show that perceptualhabits had cliangcd and that the spectatordid not fuse his intcrcsts n thefigurativc irnaqc wirh thc ficriti ous and powerful world of his irnagination.Manncrisrart, wirh it semphasis n rh eappreciation f artistic irtuosity,wa simportant for the impetuswhich it gave o a critical approach o.^'ards hefigurativc arts,but a more powerful an d traumaticphenornenonwas neededfo r thc dccachcd pectatoro cornc nto being. t ishistorically nrportanrchatat thc sanle inre that Mannerist works of arc were growing in popularitythc Imlian church was engaged n a counter-refornrmovelnent asa reactionto t he Protcstanr efornration.

Thc Protestant eformatioll wa saccompanied y a wave of destruction fChristiandcvocional bjectswhich had, hitherto, beenunknown in WesternEuropc and only rnatchcdby the much earlieractiviticso[ rhe Byzantineiconoclasts.zi hc motives of the Protestant conoclasrswere many andvaried, cxtending fronr piety, through hostiliry to papal insrirurions, ounadulterated rccd; the intention la y in an at tack on superstitionand apreoccupationwith rheworld of senseo the neglectoftrue piety. Thc leadingProrcstant heologiatts,whatever their particular doctrinal differencesmayhave been,were uniccd n their attack on idolatry; they were parricularlycritical of the argumentswhich ha d traditionally been'used n^defence f


7/11

RICHARD V/OODFIELD zz3figurative art. Contrary to St. Gregory,2z they rnaintained tharcould not, of itseld, nstruct and that if it were to be toleratedt should take secondplace o the study of the'Word of God as evealedthe Ilible. Contrary to th e decisions f cheSecondCouncil of Nicaea,z3werc noc prepared to acccpt any form of vcneration of religious artd regardcd he distinction bccweert atria anddouliaas rurctionally mean-Contrary to late mcdicval devotional practice,2a hey were notto accepr art's inspirational unction, but regarded images ascorrupt drrough beinga product of sense,esulting n undesirablesrn. or thc Protestants, n unbridgeable ap lay betweene world of rnanan d rh c world of God, an d he construction nd venerarionvisual nragcry cpreser)tcdn unwonrcd attenlpt o brcach hat gap whichbclief. Protcstantisrn as, nidally, responsibleor the dis-of figurative art's function as a 'phcnomenal cxtension of the realid not physically destroy works of arr, theyrcn'sbclicfsabout thcm by emphasizing heir falsiryand lack ofut i l i ry; inragcs ould r)orbc madeof the unknown and they wereas mediators.The Protestantattack on images was integrallywirh a decline n belief in magic in general and image-magic in

In dircct response o Protestant conoclasm, he C


8/11

?z+ ON THE EMERGENCEF AESTFIETICScoruequently, much nrore igorousscnse fhistory emerged nd,alongwithit, a change n attitude owardscosmological pace.

ltalian Catholicswere not unafrected y the literary warfarewhich formedan inregral part clf the Rcformation. In particular,nrany leadingCatholicintcllectualswere influencedby the views of Erasmus, ven hotrghhe sufferedin the handsof thc Inde**.28rasmusauncheda scathingattackon rhepopularmisuse of imagcs, but he also laid bare the origins of Christian art in itsassimilation f paganisrn,mplicit ly crit icizing he practiceof ltal ianartists:

And if someonc were to adorn our churches with statues irnilar to those with whichLysippus once adorned th e temples of the gods, would you say rhat he is similar toLysippus?-No.-W'hy not?-Because the symbols would not correspond to thethings synrbolized. I would say rhe same f somebody were ro painr a donkey in theguiseof a buffalo or a hawk in the guiseof a cuckoo, even f he ha d otherwiseexpendcdthe greatestcare and artistry upon that panel.2e

I f the artists f th eRenaissancead happily produced nythologicalpaintings,knowing thar they would be subjcct o Christianallegorization,hey couldno w tr e accused f producing something orher dran Christian paintings,and thcir lnotives could be found suspect.More importantly, Erasmushelpcd shatterdre traditional abric of visual magcry by drawing atrentionto, what may be regardedwith hindsight, asa perversionof thought. Fromone point of view, the history of medievaland renaissanccrr may be re-grrdcd as hc history of chc use,and misuse, f classical rt which providedboth sryleand content for later mages.30hanks to the work of rhe Warburglnstitutc,we ar enow in a position o begin o define hc classicalcontributionto the shape f thc medievaland renaissanccniverse, univcrsewhich wasno t simply inhabitcd by God, but by the gods aswell asa host of demons.The philosophyof Neoplatonisrn, hich opcrared s he mainscay fesotericManneristar t and reflecteda renaissanceommitment to the unity of antiqueexperience, ame under th e fire of criticsof a magicaluniverse. ncellectualsmay well havebegun to wonder what they were looking at when they sawclassicalersonagesnteringChristianpaintings, nd may well havebegun odifrerentiatebetween levels of mythical, historical and actual experience.Despite tl'reangstof intellectuals, rtistsworked on.

I would tend to agreewirh Boschloo3l n seeing he countcr-reformationas rhe stimulant o the 'Reform of Painting' nitiatedby AruribaleCarracci,so audedby Bcllori.3zTh e declineof Mannerismdi d not result n a declinein the appreciation f artisticvirtuosity; indeedquite the reverse appened;th c birrh of caricature, ne of Annibaie's astingachievements,rarked heemergencc f a new form ofscnsibil i tyand a radicallynew approach owardsvirtuosity among he ype of culr ivated lite hatha dencouragcdMannerism.The relationshipbetween Annibale's stylistic revolution and his invcntionof caricaturehas yet to be examined, but Gombrich and Kris have alreadypointed out that: I

ItII


9/11

RICFIARDWOODFIELD zzstt must come asa surpriseevcn to his admirers that the master ofsuch sublime and classicalpicruresshould at the same inre have bcen responsible or the invention no t only of thear t but of th e very word 'caricarure'.Carracci rirnself s credited with a wirry and cleverdefenceof rhis activiry of his.'ls not the caricaturisr's ask', he is reported r' ohave said,cxaccly th e same as he classical rtist's?Borh see he lasting truth benearh he surfaceof nlerc outward aPPearance.Both try- to help nature "."o-"plirh its plan. Th" on. ,,r"ystrive to visualise the perfect fonn and to r.ilise it in his work, the orher ro grasp th;perfect dcfornriry, and thus reveal the very esscncc fa personality. A good caricature,like every work of arr, is r'ore rrue ro life rhan reality iiself. 'rt

Taken ogerherwirh rheirobscrvation ha t or theernergence f th ecaricarureto occurthe picrorial rcpresentationhad to be removed frorn the sphcrewhere irnage srimulatcsactiott. Oncc the artist'sprerogativc as a dreamer of dreams was asserredihesophisti-cated ar r lovcr of the sevcnteenthcentury would be flartered rather than hurt ro lookat his countenance n the distorting mirror of rhe great artist's rnocking mind,a{

it becorncs lcar ha t thercwa s a rnajor revolurion n responseso the figur-ativc arts tr dtc cinquecuttl.Whcn Erasnrus isapprov.i of realisr ic .1..-senratiolls f hcavertan d hcll, down ro rhe lasr-ietail, as f t6e artist haddwch thcrc for nlatry ycars',35c clearlyhad in mipcl a criterion of authen-ricity which would dclinrit areas f appropriatenessn pictorial representa-tion. Givcn a situationwherc th e bo,rndsof .uth.rrticity were *"rk.d our,arrcl ppropriate csPotlscs-toarticular magesbccame "t.r,1ir.ed by sociaicon\/entiorl, he crcativc unction of thc .rrirr', irnaginationcould becomeapprcciarcd.selloricouldapprcciatc nnibalcCarracci ince rewa sclear hatAnnibalc di d no t Portray th e acrual asdi d Caravaggio)or th e fantastic asdi d Giusepped'Arpino, an d rh e Mannerists)bur Ih". id.. l , which wa s aproduct of his arristic nragination inkccl to a clear undcrsranding f t6eboundsofarr . - i,.1, it nor likely that the ProtcstanrReformation by imelfbroug6r about adisintercsrcdtrtercsrn works of.arr. Although Erasmus, o, .*""rrrple,wa shighly criricalof th c ytlt in which visual -r!e, were used, y rh econl'ronhcrd in particular,hc di d nor havc he sanre cfsibi l i ty o*"rd, the igurativeartsas hc lral ianPatrollswh o nurtured Mannerisrn.Neirher is it l i l iely thatMatitrcrisnr, f i tsclt,would have ed to a disinterestcclnterest n works ofart; whethcr or llot th e Matrneristwa s a 'dreamerof dreams',he believedirt thc ul t i t t rate eal i tyof hisdreamworld. But i t may be argued hat pro-testantisrurcatcd.tlic.scttingor th e sophisticatedart iover', "ir l , his reper-toirc of skil ls n visualanalysis,-obr.rk loose ro m beliefsp r6 e fu'ctionalefi icacyof works 9f art, capitai ising n notionsof artisticcreariviry orgedby thc thcoristsof Malurciis'r.36 i rnry secrnsrrangc har a ,opdirti..i.dItalian Ro'ra' catholic dlite of p.r.o,ri shourclhr.,,r". ecn so .ff..t.d byProtcsrantistn s to acc_epthe norion of art's ficrionaliry, bu t t6is wa s asituatiorl orccd upott rhcnr by rhc Counter-Rcformatio,i,by irs insisrence


10/11

22{; ON THE EMERGENCE F AESTHETICS:n a fundalnental han ge n culturalvalues. he patronsenjoyed he exerciseot'artisricskill, nrplicit in Mannerism,and this wa s transformedby a rigidseparatiorr f rcl igiousart, which shouldafiGcc ehaviour n ways determinedby the Council of Trent, an d sccular rt, which became he provinceof sheerenjoyment; sucha separation id not exist n th e quattrocento.

As a generalsocial phenomenonancient beliefs n image-rnagicwcre fastdeclining n thc cinquccentond with them the belief hat art consritutedaphenomenalextensionof thc real world'. The mystical world of the quat-trocettttt, here it was bclicved hat the artist simply extended he domainof the realworld to incorporate he divine,gaveway to the criticalworld ofdte cinquecettto,here Protestantsubjectedhe existence f the divinc worldto scverc scrutiny. Thc grcat Baroque ceiling paintings of th e seicentoconstitutcda last-ditch tandon thc part of the Catholic Church to captureth c public's nraginationwith visiorrs f heaven,an d ir was scif-consciou slydranrat ic; n this connect ionRubens'semarks reapposi te

Orto Venius often uscd to say to us: let your conrposit ionsbc in accordancewithcustonrs nd thc t inrcs, . . inr icatcn this respect ragcdy,which is thc sistcr f paint ing.He would alsosay that the ainr of painting is at once to enlighten the nrind and deludethe eyes,and that this llusion which is caused n the eyes s basedon their very function-ing; the eyes henrsclvcshave learnt ho w to be deceived.3t

Rubens's ensc f art ist icdeceptionwa s not novel, as readers f Plato andAugustine well know, but what was new was his sense f the necessity fdeception nd thc boundsof fictionality ;he could play the llusionistic am ewith th c consent f his patlons,becausehey knew what was rcal and wiratwas nor-oniy rhc hoi poloi could be deceived,an d wa s hc not a Catholicdiplonrat?

Th e relcase f arr fronr its phenomenalbondage to the divine worldpaved the way for the emergence f aesthetics sa philosophical iscipl inein the honrcsof Prorcstarltisnr,nglandand Gernlany.Bu t an accoul)t f th eways n which thc artisricand theological ssucs enerated y the cinquccantobecanrc bsorbcdnto philosophicaliteratureandresulted n an autonomousprovince of inrellectual nquiry will have to be lcft to anotheroccasion.

REFERENCESI Journal oJ'Ae*hcticsand Art Criticisn XX( r 9 6 r ) ,p p . I 3 I - 2 .2 BritishJoumal oI Aesthetics (r96a).s Sto ln i tz ,op . c i t . ,p . I32 .a See J. SchlosserMagnino, La letteraturaartisticar q6+).6 SeeP. O. Kristcller, 'The Modern System

of the Arrs',Journal of the Hisroryof ldeasX I I ( r e5 r ) and XI I I ( re5z) .

6 Sec M. Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators( t q z t ) .? I. A. Richter, ed., Selectionsfrom theNotebools of l*onordo da Vitrci (tqSq),P. 2OO.8 SeeV. P. Zubov, Leonardo a Vinci (1968),PP.7s4.eF. Yates,BrokenImages',New YorkReviewJ'Books,rf y $974), . rl .


11/11

r0 E. H. Gonrbrich, 'Meditations on a HobbyHorse or th e Roots of Artistic Form', inMeditations on a Hohby Horse (1963), andR. Bcrnheirner, Tlre Nature of fuprcscn-tatiou r96t).rr Bernhcimer, op. cit., pp . z4-5.r2 C. Mango, cd., Tfu Art of the ByzantineEmpire r2-1453 (1972),p. 4o .rs See M. Baxandzll, Paintingand Experiencein FiJtec nth Century ltaly (tglt), andD. S. Chanrbcrs, ed., Patronsand Artistsin the Italian RenaissancetqZo).r{ See E. H. Gombrich, 'The RenaissanceConccption of Artistic Progress and itsConscqucnces', n Norur andForm$966).16SeeJ. Shcarnran,Mdwrcrism1967).rc A, Hauscr, Dtr Mauierisnntsr96a).r? See E. Panofsky, 'The NcoplatonicMovcnrcnt in Florcnce and North ltaly'ir r Srrdirs in lconttloQylq6Z).rs Se eE. H. Gombrich, 'Bociccl l i 's Mytho-logies: A Study in the Neo-PlatonrcSynrbolisnr of his Circlc', in Synboliclmages0gzz).t 'E.g. St. Bonaventura, Il incrarium Mcntisad Dewn.20G. M. Ackernran, The Structure tJLonnzzo's Treatiseon Paintinp I96a)andR. Klein, "'Ls scpt gouverncurs de I'art"selonLornazzo', in La forme ct I 'inttl l igible(rqzo).2r Scc J. Phillips, The Rtfonuation of InngeslgZi and 'Refornlation an d Counter-l\eforrrration' in Encyclopcdia of WorldArt, vol . XI (1966).22Lettcr to l-)ishopScrcnus of Marscil le

RICHARDWOODFIELD 1 4 12' SeeE. J. Martin, A Historyof the lcono-claticControversytgto).?{ SeeS. Ringbom, Icon o Narrativerq6S).26Sc eK. Thomas, Religion nd he Declineof Magic rqzr) and alsoD. P. Walker,TheDecline f Hell (tq6l).z0R. Klein and H. Zemer, eds., talianArtt5oo- t6oo, . Izo .2?Se eA. W. A. Boschloo,umibaleCarracciin Bologna:VisibleReality n ,4tt after he

Council f Trent, vols. tpZ+).?8See or exarnpleD. Freedberg,JohannesMolanus on Provocative Paintings',Journol of the Warburg and CourtauldInstitutcs,:+r97r), pp . z3z f .20E. Panofsky, 'Erasrnusand the VisualArrs' ,JWCI, 3z $969),p. 2rJ.soE. Panofsky,Rcnoissancend Renascurcesin Westcrn rt (t965), *d J. Seznec,fheSuruival f hcPagan od s tqSt).

" Boschloo, p. ci t .s2G. P. Bellori, The Liues tf Annibale&Agostitro arraui, rans. . Enggass,r968),PP ' J -6 's! E. H. Gorrrbrich nd E. Kns, Caricature(rq+o), p. ro-r2.3{ E. Kris (in collaborationwith E. H.Gornbrich),Tbe Principles f Caricature'in PsyclrcaualyticxplorationsttArt $g74),P.2o2.soE. Panofsky, 'Erasmusand the VisualArts ' ,p. 2o9.'6 Se cE. Pmofsky, dea, rans.J. J. S. Peake,(r968)and E. S. Barelli, Teorici striuorid'artera nnnicrismo baroccor966).3?P. I\ubcns, egons,d. Broussart,r858),P . I 1 9 .

Documents

23.Richard Wood Field- On the Emergence of Aesthetics