Mannerism

     Freedberg’s chapter on painting in central Italy (1535-1575) begins by describing an emergence of Mannerism, as an evolution not marked by any sure distinction, but more as an emotional experimentation, as much as certain dissent from the High-Renaissance canon, by individual artists, “initiated” by early generation and continued by the next. High-maniera is both an exploration of potential in the work of early mannerists, and also a highly restrictive “genre” concerned with combining a deliberately stylized reality with artifice and ornamentation, with no room for nonintention. These artists looked to both Michelangelo’s sculpture and (Raphael’s as well) sculptural paintings, and to classical sculpture as part of a new canon of painting. A purpose emerges in using/referencing older works out of context with multiple, complex and perhaps contradictory meanings. An extreme relationship with contemporary literature also emerges, reflecting heavy use of metaphor and allusion, with the visual result not always fully interpretable by the viewer. Described is the (contradictory?) quality of duality and dislocations of the meanings in high-Manierist religious art, thus creating a sense of (religious) excitement. Perhaps the best definition of the best of the high-maniera work is one of many multiple (if unrelated) meanings, skillfully applied, with extreme care with regard to aesthetics in which it was the viewers task to synthesize meaning, bringing their own intelligence and education to bear upon the work, and to parse a meaning of their own devising. Freedberg points out that maniera painting is generally regarded as a “decline” from High Renaissance, and Craig Hugh Smyth quotes others with the same regard in his treatise.

     Smyth lists nineteenth century (negative) perceptions and attributes of mannerist painting, namely the use of Michelangelesque forms and style. As well, the change in status of the painter from journeyman to courtier is further blamed for the decline in quality of Mannerist works. Problematic is the interpretation of the seemingly many forms of Mannerism, and how these interpretations, the forms, and terms used to describe them changed over the centuries since the Cinquecento. Derogatory comments seem to consistently dwell upon reliance on imagination and style, rather than nature itself. (rather opposite of our contemporary work) Conversely, changing tastes of the Seventeenth century see mannerist work as “fantastic”, and all characteristics are seen in an aesthetically Positive light. Further characteristics of Mannerism are explored, such as a uniformity of  figures, and a seeming canon of awkward physical poses for figures, and a flattened light source often used, the importance of the portrayal of minutiae, and of odd portrayals of space (“broken” and “divided” and “not easily grasped”).

      Mannerism obviously encompasses so many different characteristics it may be impossible to define or encapsulate all work that may fall within this loose term for the work of many artists over decades, and whether it was deliberately anti-classical, or simply experimentation, or whatever, it is certainly interesting, and often beautiful, for all its strangeness.