Giulio Campagnola's Copies After Other Artists and His Use Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter 6 Tratta da Zorzi: Giulio Campagnola’s Copies after other Artists and his Use of Models Irene Brooke Giulio Campagnola occupies a notable place in the history of printmaking on account of his experimentation with and development of stippling as a means of shading in his engravings. He was also a prominent figure in Venetian culture of his time, with links to well-known humanists, literary fig- ures, and individuals involved in the printing industry, like Pietro Bembo and Aldo Manuzio. Modern literature on Giulio’s œuvre often presents a widely varied conception of his output, his range of ability, and his art historical im- portance.1 The matter has been further complicated by dramatic shifts made by preeminent scholars like Konrad Oberhuber and David Landau in their 1 I would like to thank Jennifer Fletcher, Charles Hope, and Catherine Whistler for reading this essay prior to its publication and for their many helpful and insightful comments. I am also grateful to Maddalena Bellavitis for inviting me to contribute to this volume and Sarah Ferrari for many stimulating discussions about Giulio, Giorgione, and the artistic culture of early cinquecento Venice. The principle studies on Giulio’s career follow: Paul Kristeller, Giulio Campagnola, Kupferstiche und Zeichnungen. Bruno Cassirer, 1907; Arthur M. Hind, Early Italian Engraving. A Critical Catalogue with Complete Reproduction of all Prints Described. Vol. V, Bernard Quaritch, 1948, pp. 189–205; Konrad Oberhuber, “Giulio Campagnola.” Early Italian Engravings from the National Gallery of Art Washington, edited by Jay A. Levenson et al., National Gallery of Art, 1973, pp. 390–413; Mark J. Zucker, Early Italian Masters: The Illustrated Bartsch. Vol. 25, Abaris Books, 1984, pp. 463–87; Maria A. Chiari Moretto Wiel, “Per una nuova cronologia di Giulio Campagnola incisore.” Arte Veneta, vol. 62, 1988, pp. 41–42; Antonio Carradore, “Giulio Campagnola, un artista umanista.” Venezia Cinquecento, vol. 20, no. 40, 2010, pp. 55–134. Recent studies on the artist include Charles Hope, “Drawings, Attribution and Evidence: Giulio Campagnola, Giorgione and Early Titian.” Rethinking Renaissance Drawings: Essays in Honour of David McTavish, edited by Una Roman d’Elia, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014, pp. 61–89; Irene Brooke, “‘Il molto cortese e gentile M. Giulio Campagnola’ and his ‘gargion’: New evidence for the date of Giulio’s death and reflections on Domenico’s early career.” Da Venezia a Roma. Pietro Bembo tra arti e lettere, edited by Vittoria Romani, Padua University Press, forthcoming; and Catherine Whistler, “Aspects of disegno, drawing and prints in Renaissance Venice,” in Jenseits des Disgeno? Die Entstehung selbständiger Zeichnungen in Deutschland und Italien im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, edited by Alessandro Nova and Daniela Bohde, Michael Imhof Verlag, forthcoming. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004379596_008 Tratta da Zorzi 213 approach to the artist in different studies.2 Despite recent scholarship revalu- ating the status of copies in the Renaissance, the divergence of opinion among art historians in their view of Giulio often still hinges on a perception of his originality, or conversely, derivativeness as an artist.3 Giulio is recorded as hav- ing made copies after works by leading painters of his day, and much of the early praise of Giulio celebrates his ability as a copyist, although the precise relationship of his extant engravings with the work of other artists has proved to be a complex issue. Taking into account the evidence presented in the prints themselves, as well as our knowledge of contemporary printmaking practices, this essay will explore Giulio’s use of contemporary models. Eschewing mod- ernist conceptions of copy versus original, which have tended to obscure our understanding of the artist, the reception of Giulio’s work by a contemporary audience of collectors and artists will be evaluated and his role in the artistic culture of his time assessed. From the age of thirteen, Giulio’s ability to copy the work of the famed art- ists of his day, Bellini and Mantegna, was extolled in the writings of his father’s humanist friends.4 Giulio is known to have excelled in the art of miniature and later made small illuminations after works by avant-garde Venetian art- ists, Giorgione and Benedetto Diana, which were noted in the 1520s by the art aficionado and connoisseur, Marcantonio Michiel, in the Paduan house of the 2 See: Oberhuber 1973, 390–401, and Konrad Oberhuber, Disegni di Tiziano e della sua cerchia. Neri Pozza, 1976, pp. 52–57, versus Konrad Oberhuber, “Le message de Giorgione et du jeune Titien dessinateurs.” Le Siècle de Titien, l’âge d’or de la peinture à Venise, exhibition catalogue, edited by Michel Laclotte, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1994, pp. 483–502, 483–95 and idem, “Giorgione, Titien jeune, leur influence. Dessins et gravures.” Ivi, pp. 503–30, 503–7 (where works previously accepted as Giulio’s are given to Giorgione). Likewise see: David Landau, “Printmaking in Venice and the Veneto.” The Genius of Venice, exhibition catalogue, edited by Jane Martineau and Charles Hope, Royal Academy of Arts, 1981, pp. 303–5, 304, nos. P8–P12, and idem, “Giulio Campagnola.” Ivi, pp. 312–23, 312–16, and 320, no. P17, and David Landau and Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print. Yale University Press, 1994, pp. 150, 261–64, versus David Landau, “L’arte dell’incisione a Venezia ai tempi di Manuzio.” Aldo Manuzio: Il Rinascimento Veneziano, exhibition catalogue, edited by Guido Beltramini et al., Marsilio, 2016, pp. 107–35, 107 and 123–32. 3 For the status of copies in the Renaissance and Early Modern period see: especially Kathleen Preciado, editor, Retaining the Original: Multiples, Originals, Copies, and Reproductions. Studies in the History of Art, vol. 20, The National Gallery of Art, 1989. For another recent discussion pertaining to the Renaissance see: Alexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood, Anachronic Renaissance. Zone Books, 2010, pp. 275–99. Hope 2014, 33–45 relates the history of scholarly prejudice against Giulio on account the perception of him as a ‘copyist’. 4 For an outline of contemporary humanist praise of Giulio see: Carradore 2010, 55–70; and Hope 2014, 31–33..