The Maker's Knowledge: Production and Analysis of Ugo da Carpi's David Slaying Goliath

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Church, Sophie Oriana

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 09/10/2021 01:10:44

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632561

THE MAKER’S KNOWLEDGE: PRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF UGO DA CARPI’S DAVID SLAYING GOLIATH

by

Sophie Church

______Copyright © Sophie Church 2019

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ART HISTORY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2019

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my thesis advisor and committee chair, Dr. Pia Cuneo of the

Department of Art History at the University of Arizona. She consistently steered me in the right direction every time I got lost in my research. Her unwavering support and guidance made this thesis possible.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Sarah Moore of the Department of Art History and

Dr. Nancy Odegaard of the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Materials

Science at the University of Arizona as my second and third readers of this thesis. I am grateful to both their valuable insights and comments on this thesis.

I would also like to thank my numerous colleagues within the Art Conservation community: Nancy Odegaard, Gina Watkinson, Dana Hemmenway, Dana Tepper, and Linda

Stiber Morenus, for their continuous support and input throughout my research and hands-on examination of the print from the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s collection.

Furthermore, I am very grateful to the UAMA for their cooperation, and to Registrar Kristen

Schmidt for making this research possible. Without Registrar Schmidt’s help I would not have been able to analyze and test the print in person. These analyses later proved integral to my thesis research. Additionally, a huge thank you to the Arizona State Museum and the Center for

Creative Photography for allowing me to utilize their facilities and equipment in the examination of the UAMA’s print.

Finally, I must express my profound gratitude to Professor Cerese Vaden for introducing me to Intaglio printmaking and supporting me throughout my experimentation with etching and engraving techniques. I truly enjoyed returning to studio art and creating my own prints.

3

DEDICATION

For my Mother, Nicole N. Davis, who has always loved my art.

4

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………...... 7

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...29

INTRODUCTION……………………….………………………………………………………30

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………...31

THE BIBLE AND THE LOGGIA…………………………………….………………………...34

PRINTMAKING AS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS……………………………………….36

PRINTMAKING HISTORY…………………………..………………………………………...37

The Chiaroscuro Woodcut……………………………………………………………….39

Printmaking States of Ugo da Carpi’s David Slaying Goliath ..……………………...... 40

RELIEF PRINTMAKING……………………………………………………………………….41

The Chiaroscuro Woodcut Process………………………………………………………42

Editing Woodblocks……………………………………………………………………...43

Single Woodblock Reductive Method…………………………………………………...44

PRINTMAKING MATERIALS: CHIAROSCURO WOODCUT…………….………………..45

Woodblocks……………………………………………………………………………...45

Ink Processing ……………………………………………………………………………47

Analysis of the Inks Present in the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s Print……...49

Ink Viscosity and Printing Pressure……………………………………………………...52

Printmaking Ink Today…………………………………………………………………..55

Paper Processing…………………………………………………………………………55

Physical Evidence Observed……………………………………………………………..56

5

Quality and Sale of Paper for Printmaking………………………………………………58

ART HISTORY, ART CONSERVATION, AND STUDIO ART……………………………....61

APPENDICES……………………...……………………………………………………………63

List of Ugo da Carpi’s David Slaying Goliath in other collections……………………...63

My Experience: Intaglio Printmaking……………………………………………………63

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrum Results: Highlight Ink Layer of UAMA David Slaying

Goliath……………………………………………………………………………………66

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..67

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Verso, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century,

Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, Arizona.

Pages 1 and 30.

Figure 2: Recto, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century,

Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, Arizona.

Pages 1 and 30. 7

Figure 3: David Slaying Goliath, Raphael, 1519, Fresco painting, Loggia, Vatican, Rome, Italy

Page 5.

Figures 4 and 5: The Loggia, Vatican, Rome, Italy. Page 5.

8

Figure 6: David Beheading Goliath, Marcantonio Raimondi, after Raphael, 1520-25, Engraving,

Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, MN. Pages 7 and 36.

Figure 7: Detail, David and Goliath, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1520-27, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Third state, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Page 7. 9

Figure 8: The Massacre of the Innocents, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1520-27, Chiaroscuro woodcut, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Page 8.

Figure 9: The Massacre of the Innocents, Marcantonio Raimondi, after Raphael, 1512-13,

Engraving, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Page 8. 10

Figure 10: Detail, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century,

Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, Arizona.

Pages 11 and 15.

Figure 11 (Left): Detail, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth State, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ.

Pages 11, 15, and 25.

Figure 12 (Above Right): Detail, David Slaying Goliath, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1520-27,

Chiaroscuro Woodcut, Third State, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Pages 11, 15, and 25. 11

Figure 13: David Kills Goliath, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1518-1520, Chiaroscuro woodcut,

First state, Royal Collection Trust, England. Page 11.

Figure 14: David Cutting off the Head of Goliath, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1520-1529,

Chiaroscuro woodcut, Second state, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of

Oxford, England. Page 11. 12

Figure 15: David and Goliath, Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1520-27, Chiaroscuro woodcut,

Third state, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Page 11.

Figure 16: David onthoofdt Goliat, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, 1502-1532, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Page 12. 13

Figure 17: Woodcut relief printmaking tools. Page 17.

Figure 18: Portable X-ray Fluorescence at the Arizona State Museum Conservation Lab, analysis of David Slaying Goliath, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ. Page 22.

14

Figure 19: Portable X-ray Fluorescence at the Arizona State Museum Conservation Lab, analysis of David Slaying Goliath, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ. Page 22.

Figure 20: X-radiography Cabinet at the Arizona State Museum Conservation Lab, analysis of

David Slaying Goliath, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ. Page 23. 15

Figure 21: X-ray image from analysis of David Slaying Goliath in the Arizona State Museum

Conservation Lab, Tucson, AZ. Page 23.

Figure 22: Detail, Recto, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson,

Arizona. Page 23. 16

Figures 23-27: Photomicrograph, David Slaying

Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael,

Sixteenth century, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art,

Tucson, AZ. Page 23.

17

Figure 28: Detail, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century,

Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ. Page 25.

Figure 29: Raking Light, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael, Sixteenth century, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ.

Page 25. 18

Figure 30 (Left): Print depicting a sixteenth-century wooden platen press. Page 25.

Figure 31 (Above right): Self Portrait, Sophie Church, woodcut, 2016. Page 25.

Figure 32: Transmitted Light, David Slaying Goliath, after Ugo da Carpi, after Raphael,

Sixteenth century, Chiaroscuro woodcut, Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art,

Tucson, AZ. Page 27. 19

Figure 33 and 34: Hikers, Sophie Church, woodcut, 2016. Page 30.

Figure 35: After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Drypoint etching, 2019. Page

31. 20

Figure 36: Transmitted Light, After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Drypoint etching, 2019. Page 31.

Figure 37: Drypoint etching, Plexi-glass plate, Sophie Church, 2019. Page 34. 21

Figure 38: Drypoint etching, Over wiping, regular wiping, under wiping, Sophie Church, 2019.

Page 34.

Figure 39: Using the roller press, drypoint etching, Sophie Church, 2019. Page 35. 22

Figure 40: Etching, zinc plate with hard ground design, Sophie Church, 2019. Page 35.

Figure 41 (Left): Acid bath equipment in the UA School of Art Print Studio, 2019. Page 35.

Figure 42 (Right): My etching plate in the acid bath, Sophie Church, 2019. Page 35.

23

Figure 43: Zinc printing plate, After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Etching,

2019. Page 35.

Figure 44: Raking Light, Zinc printing plate, After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie

Church, Etching, 2019. Page 35. 24

Figure 45: After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Etching, 2019. Page 35.

Figure 46: After Raphael’s David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Etching, 2019. Page 35. 25

Figure 47: Photomicrograph, Drypoint etching print. Page 35.

Figure 48: Photomicrograph, Etching. Page 35.

Figure 49: Photomicrograph, Etching zinc plate. Page 35.

26

Figure 50: After David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Engraving on zinc plate, 2019. Page 36.

Figure 51: After David Slaying Goliath, Sophie Church, Engraving, 2019. Page 36.

27

Figure 52: Engraving burin, whetstone and other sharpening tools, 2019. Page 36.

Figure 53: Holding an engraving burin, Sophie Church, 2019. Page 36.

28

ABSTRACT

This study explores the technique and materials used in the making of the University of

Arizona Museum of Art's sixteenth-century chiaroscuro woodcut print David Slaying Goliath. It also poses the question of: was this print produced by Ugo da Carpi or another workshop of the sixteenth century? Through observations of the composition, materials used, and the chiaroscuro woodcut technique, I analyze Ugo da Carp's mark-making method to determine how this print was made. I argue that we find evidence of the alteration of Ugo's woodblocks and this print's production by another workshop, which accounts for the poor quality of the materials used and the overall craftsmanship. To better understand printmaking materials, techniques, and technologies, I learned intaglio printmaking and mimicked the mark-making methods of these early modern printmakers and carvers through etching and engraving processes.

29

Introduction

When I first saw David Slaying Goliath by Ugo da Carpi (Fig. 1-2) in the University of

Arizona Museum of Art, I was filled with questions.1 What is happening in this scene of war?

What materials is this print made of? Is one of the ink layers faded? Why is there a line down the center of the print? But most of all, I wanted to know how Ugo da Carpi made this image and whether or not it was truly made by him. This curiosity lead me to analyze the materials of this print using technology ranging from a simple microscope to an advanced X-radiography machine available to me in the conservation laboratories on campus at the Center for Creative

Photography and the Arizona State Museum. This analysis provided me with scientific data to support my art historical research and hypotheses. However, I wanted to know more about how prints are made and decided to take an introductory intaglio printmaking course to provide me with insight into what it is like to carve wood and metal, to spread ink on a printing plate or woodblock, and to prepare paper and print my final image using a press.

As I began my research, I found that there are not many English sources which discuss this specific print by Ugo da Carpi. The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy briefly references Ugo da Carpi’s prints of David Slaying Goliath.2 Within this short selection, the author, Naoko Takahatake, mentions the multiple states of this print and woodblock. It is from the footnotes of this selection that I was able to track down several examples of the five total states of this print and compare them to the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s version to

1 The UAMA dates the print to 1518. My research has indicated that the date would be sometime after 1530. Indeed, Naoko Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy (New York, Los Angeles: Delmonico Books; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2018), 94; argues for a date before the 1560s or 1570s.

2 Naoko Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy (New York, Los Angeles: Delmonico Books; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2018), 93.

30

determine which state the print in their collection is. Additionally, this selection supported my hypothesis that this print was not inked or pressed by Ugo da Carpi.

Through observations of the composition, materials used, and the chiaroscuro technique,

I will analyze David Slaying Goliath and Ugo da Carpi’s mark-making process to determine how this print was made. I argue that we find the evidence of the alteration of Ugo’s woodblocks and this print’s production by another workshop, which accounts for the poor quality of the materials used and the overall craftsmanship. To better understand printmaking materials, techniques, and technologies, I learned intaglio printmaking and mimicked the mark-making methods of these early modern printmakers and carvers through etching and engraving processes. Although I did not have the opportunity to directly learn the chiaroscuro woodcut technique, I did learn about relief printmaking from current printmaking graduate students and was able to refresh my memory of an introductory course on relief printmaking from my undergraduate career. Overall,

I am approaching my research from a material and art conservation perspective, and therefore am interested in the knowledge to be gained from the hands-on practice of these printmaking techniques. Pamela Smith and Linda Stiber Morenus are two scholars who approached their research similarly and provided me with the inspiration for this thesis.

Literature Review

In “Making Things: Techniques and Books in Early Modern Europe,” Pamela Smith discusses her personal experience in performing life-casting technique and examines how learning this process was essential to her understanding of artists workshops in early modern

Europe. She also discusses the sudden burst of artists writing on these experiences and why the recording of their personal process may have been important to them. She then records her own thoughts on reconstructing these techniques and her knowledge gained through the making 31

process. She states, “Sometimes the maker’s knowledge is written down, but technical writings seldom convey sufficient information to actually engage in making an object”3 This coincides with her statement “experience is essential” or that true knowledge can only be obtained through the whole body. She concludes with what she learned about this period of art production from reconstructing the techniques in modern day. I think it is important as a historian to have experience in creating and working with the materials you are researching. Reading about the creation process will not teach your body and hands how to perform it. Learning with your hands can provide additional insights into the object, artist, patron, and period, as well as into the interaction between the materials and the artist.

In “Recreating the Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcut,” a chapter by Linda Stiber Morenus in

The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy by Naoko Takahatake, Morenus discusses what she learned from creating her own prints in the chiaroscuro woodcut technique. Additionally,

Morenus also reproduced the inks and matched the paper quality used by artists like Ugo da

Carpi to further learn about his process and intentions. Morenus then tested the prints she produced by exposing them to different environmental conditions, such as light or moisture intense circumstances. Morenus then used the results to compare the effects on each print and how each condition could alter the appearance of these prints over time. This information helped me to evaluate the damage I observed on the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s version of

Ugo da Carpi’s David Slaying Goliath.

In “Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcuts: Instrumental

Analysis, Degradation, and Conservation,” Morenus discusses the results of a technical survey of

3 Pamela Smith, “Making Things: Techniques and Books in Early Modern Europe,” In Early Modern Things: Objects and their Histories, 1500-1800 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012) 179.

32

over two-thousand Italian chiaroscuro woodcuts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This survey revealed trends in the deterioration of colored inks and their paper supports. Additionally,

Morenus provides a table of different types of inks found in the survey and furthermore the results from instrumental analyses of seventy-two prints from collections of the Library of

Congress, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and the Grunwald Center for the Graphic

Arts. These results determined several unstable colorants and documented their behavior, so researchers can infer how the visual appearance of a print is likely to have changed.4 For my research, this reading showed me many examples of how prints from this period and by Ugo da

Carpi and other artists deteriorate. I was able to compare the deterioration visible on the

University of Arizona Museum of Art’s print to the results listed and described in the paper. It also enabled me to further understand the clues I should look for and to plan my own analytical testing of the UAMA’s print.

In “The Chiaroscuro Woodcut Printmaking of Ugo da Carpi, Antonio da Trento and

Niccolò Vicentino: Technique in Relation to Artistic Style,” Morenus differentiates between the working methods of three early modern printmakers. She also discusses how recognizing each artists’ mark-making process is essential to the attribution of their prints for museums and other institutions. Her research applies a diagnostic approach that relies on the systematic analysis of physical evidence, such as ink character, palettes, manner of printing and chronology of woodblock state and wear, to individuate the workshop practices of these printmakers.5 Her

4 Linda Stiber Morenus, Charlotte W. Eng, Naoko Takahatake and Diana C. Rambaldi, 16th and 17th Century Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcuts: Instrumental Analysis, Degradation, and Conservation (Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 2015, 54:4) 238-271.

5 Linda Stiber Morenus, “The Chiaroscuro Woodcut Printmaking of Ugo da Carpi, Antonio da Trento and Niccolò Vicentino: Technique in Relation to Artistic Style,” in Printing Colour 1400-1700: History, Techniques, Functions, and Receptions, by Ad Stijnman and Elizabeth Savage (Leiden: Brill, 2015) 67.

33

analysis is informed by practical knowledge gained from recreating chiaroscuro woodcuts and by comparing these to historic originals. Her research is very similar to the way I wanted to approach my own.

The Bible and the Loggia

High up on the ceiling, in the halls of the Loggia in the Vatican in Rome, is a small fresco painting by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (1483-1520), depicting the moment in which David killed Goliath (Fig. 3-5). In the center of the composition, David is depicted as a young boy on the battlefield, holding a sword above his head, in the act of slaying Goliath who is shown as a large man on the ground beneath David’s knee. Goliath’s head is down, his face is out of view, and his arm is reaching out for help. His back and arms are quite muscular, and he appears to be a strong man. However David, a young shepherd boy, is still able to overpower and hold him on the ground. The two figures are surrounded by chaos as many others are battling around them.

One figure on the right side of the composition seems to be fleeing the battlefield. Another figure on the left side is down on his knees, begging for his life. This painting captures the moment of

Goliath’s defeat and with his downfall, his soldiers are also defeated.

The sword David wields to behead Goliath, and the chaotic battlefield around them, indicate that this image follows the biblical narrative in which David is a young shepherd living with his father in the Kingdom of Israel.6 The story begins when God is upset with the king of

Israel, Saul, who disobeyed a divine command to kill all of the Amalekites and to destroy their confiscated property. God sends Samuel, a prophet, to anoint David to be king instead. After

6 OT: 1 Samuel, 17

34

Saul is tormented by an evil spirit, his courtiers advise him to send for David, and thus David enters the king’s service as one of the royal armor-bearers.

Later, war comes between Israel and the Philistines, and the giant, Goliath of the

Philistines, challenges the Israelite army to send out a champion to face him in single combat.

Goliath states that if he wins the single fight, then the Israelites must follow the Philistines, and that if the Israelite challenger wins, then the Philistines will follow King Saul. David is sent to the battlefield by his father to seek out his brothers who were already there with the rest of the

Israelite army. He arrives when Goliath declares his challenge and he then tells King Saul that he can defeat Goliath. At first the king refuses, since David is still a youth and Goliath is a warrior.

However, David persuades the king to let him fight after telling him about the numerous beasts he has protected his flock of sheep from as a shepherd. The king accepts David as the chosen champion of the Israelites and offers him royal armor. David refuses the armor and goes to fight

Goliath with only his sling. During the fight, David knocks Goliath down with his sling and then takes Goliath’s sword and beheads him. Some members of the Philistine army attempt to flee after seeing their strongest warrior fall, though most pledge allegiance to the Israelites. After the battle all of Israel loves David, though the king begins to fear him and worries that David wishes to steal the throne. David later acquires Goliath’s sword, fights in various other battles, and later makes up with King Saul rather than killing him.

This particular image by Raphael was created, along with many others decorating the hall, in 1519 by Raphael and his team of artists. These paintings provided references for printmakers and other artists for centuries. The Loggia was originally a hall open to the air on one side and visitors to the Apostolic Palace would walk through this space. It was not considered an important place in the palace which is why it is not as elaborately decorated and 35

there are no large paintings or gilding. It is likely that anyone visiting the palace would have walked down this hall and viewed the paintings on the ceiling. An artist wishing to mimic

Raphael’s painting and composition could create a sketch of the design. However, I am unsure how visible these images are from the ground, or how many details can be perceived. Therefore, a drawing from the original installation of the paintings was more likely used. Printmakers and painters, such as Marcantonio Raimondi, helped Raphael to paint the walls and ceilings of the

Loggia and Vatican palace.7 This relationship between the printmakers and Raphael likely accounts for how the design was acquired for reproduction.

Printmaking as a Collaborative Process

In the sixteenth century, multiple artists were involved in the creation of a single print.

The first artist would draw the initial design on paper for the craftsman, who would then carve the design into the woodblock.8 Ugo da Carpi (1480-1532) was one of these trained craftsmen, even though he had training as a painter as well. He would carve, ink, and print each of the woodblocks following the artist’s design. For David Slaying Goliath, Ugo da Carpi followed an engraving (Fig. 6) by Marcantonio Raimondi (1480-1534), after Raphael’s original painting, whom he credits by printing Raphael’s name on each print, “Raphael Urbinas Per Ugo da Carpi”

(Fig. 7). David Slaying Goliath is not the only chiaroscuro print by Ugo in which he follows an engraving by Marcantonio after a painting by Raphael. Ugo’s chiaroscuro woodcut, Massacre of the Innocents, made in 1520-27 (Fig. 8) also copies another engraving by Marcantonio from

7 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 25.

8 John Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials (Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1981) 6.

36

1513 (Fig. 9). Ugo’s chiaroscuro woodcut prints confidently declare his skill by inviting comparison with Marcantonio’s acknowledged masterwork.9

Printmaking History

The process of creating images by impression is as ancient as the Assyrian cylinder seals of the Near East from 3500 BC and the stamping of coins first observed in sixth-century Turkey.

However, when the printing of images on paper began in Europe, it opened a new channel to exchange art and ideas.10 Although the techniques of creating these works is ancient, never before had prints made with such detail and intricacy been successfully manufactured. Woodcut relief printmaking, originating in fourth-century China, began in Europe around 1380.11 Fifty years later, engravings from metal plates, an intaglio printmaking technique, appeared in 1430.

Shortly after in 1440, with the invention of moveable type and the printing press by Johannes

Gutenberg in Germany, came letterpress printing. This enabled faster publishing of books and printing of images. Then in the early sixteenth century, around 1513, etching of metal plates, another intaglio printmaking technique, was introduced. During this same period, chiaroscuro woodcut printmaking was also invented.

Around 1470, printmaking style and subject matter began to change in both the north and the south of Europe. A class of printmakers who were both painters and engravers, or more complexly masters who can be said to have conceived of printmaking primarily as an extension

9 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 95.

10 David Landau and Peter W. Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 4.

11 Kristian Sotriffer, Printmaking; History and Technique (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968) 8.

37

of the painter’s art, began to emerge.12 The appearance of these printmakers marks the beginning of the notion of the autonomous print as a work of art. These painter-printmakers employed mark-making techniques such as cross-hatching to express light and capture tonality as well as textural differences in their prints.

The beginning of printmaking however is closely tied to the activities of carpenters and metalworkers.13 Goldsmiths knew how to inscribe a design on a metal surface but creating a historical narrative or composing figures was not so often done. Therefore, apprenticing under a metalworker or a painter meant approaching the making of a print with different skill sets at hand. Accordingly, many early printmakers were trained in both these crafts. In early sixteenth- century Europe, the arts and crafts were associated with different guilds that regulated the teaching of apprentices and the production and distribution of their works. Usually, artists practicing printmaking would have allied with the painters in guilds that frequently also included sculptors.14 Consistent with the guild divisions, we find that most known printmakers identified themselves first as painters or goldsmiths. It is probably to the printmaker’s advantage that they did not belong to a specific guild due to the commercial nature of their product.15 Additionally, those who were purely technicians of early printmaking such as the woodblock cutter often belonged to the carpenters’ guild, or they sometimes aligned themselves with a variety of other crafts, including the card painters and document illuminators. By the end of the fifteenth century,

12 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 4.

13 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 8.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid. 38

these printmakers, with their diverse skillsets, began to show the extent to which a three- dimensional illusion could be attained without color.

The Chiaroscuro Woodcut

The chiaroscuro woodcut technique was developed by Hans Burgkmair in Augsburg,

Germany during the beginning of the sixteenth century as a method more comparable to watercolor and wash drawings.16 This technique was an attempt to make printmaking less mechanical and more artistic in appearance, as well as to further mimic the qualities and values of a painting. About a decade later, Ugo da Carpi also claimed to have invented the chiaroscuro technique. In 1516, Ugo requested an exclusive privilege from the Venetian Senate to protect his

“invention”.17 Although the technique was not in fact created by him, Ugo did introduce it to

Italy and further developed it into a painterly manner of expression. It is likely that Ugo extrapolated this method of woodcut carving after seeing a Northern European example.18 This development in printmaking style throughout Italy became important for the growth of the chiaroscuro woodcut.19

Ugo da Carpi made many prints using the chiaroscuro woodcut technique. Several of these prints are also made after compositions by Raphael, including the UAMA’s David Slaying

Goliath. Today, edition numbers are used by printmakers to indicate the total number of prints made from one plate or block. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know exactly how many prints

16 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 10.

17 “Ugo da Carpi David and Goliath,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2018, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/632712.

18 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 10.

19 Peter Weaver, Printmaking, a Medium for Basic Design (London, New York: Studio Vista; Reinhold Book, 1968) 15.

39

Ugo made from this woodblock design because edition numbers were not used in the early modern period. This makes it difficult to track down all of Ugo’s prints depicting this composition of David and Goliath. However, I was able to find several prints of this composition in the chiaroscuro technique by Ugo within collections around the world.20

Printmaking States of Ugo da Carpi’s David Slaying Goliath

In printmaking, a state is a different version of a print, created after a permanent change by the artist to the woodblock. There are a total of five states of this chiaroscuro print by Ugo da

Carpi. The rare first state shows the names of the designer “Raphael Urbinas” and the printmaker

“P Ugo da Carpi” in the light tone block, in the top and bottom of the perimeter that frames the composition (Fig. 13). In the second state, both names appear together within the image composition at the bottom center foreground of the light tone block, and the perimeter is cut back

(Fig. 14). Between the second and third states, the spears held by a combatant at the upper left were modified with a plug inserted into the darkest block (Fig. 15). In the fourth state of this print, Ugo’s name is excised from the light tone block (Fig. 16). Finally, in the extremely rare fifth state of this print, Raphael’s name is also removed.21

When the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s copy of David Slaying Goliath is compared with other known copies, the linework of this print is considerably less well defined.

This is due to the lower quality of inks used and the amount of pressure applied during printing.

Areas of clear and precise cross-hatching appear to be blotches. This is most noticeable in

Goliath’s back and in the shadows on the ground around his body (Fig. 10-12). This poor quality

20 See appendix for full list.

21 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 94.

40

of materials and lesser craftsmanship lead me to believe that this print was not produced by Ugo da Carpi. In fact, this version of David Slaying Goliath at the UAMA is the fourth state of this print.

During the sixteenth century, carved woodblocks would be sold to workshops and publishing houses by artists or their families when they were done using them.22 After the production of the first three states of David Slaying Goliath, it is likely that Ugo sold his woodblocks to another workshop or artist. It is also possible that after his death around 1530, someone else took and printed his blocks. This is also evident by the removal of Ugo da Carpi’s name from the bottom of the composition in the fourth state of the print, suggesting that the new owner of the woodblocks did not want to credit Ugo in his editions.

Relief Printmaking

Relief printmaking, including the chiaroscuro technique used by Ugo da Carpi, is a process in which the surface of the block is cut away until all that remains is the final design to be printed. The negative space of the initial design is removed by the blade; therefore the printmaker must think in reverse and consider the parts of the block untouched or unmarked as positive space. This can be challenging because in traditional mark-making such as in the painting process, wherever the artist applies his brush, the mark created expresses positive space.

Positive space is used in intaglio printmaking techniques, in which the ink applied to the metal plate and later absorbed by the paper when printed, sits within the lines incised by the printmaker using a burin, scratcher, or acid. However, in relief printmaking it is the opposite and the ink is applied to the surface of the block, not within the carved lines. Therefore the ink is picked up by

22 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 13.

41

the paper from the surface during the pressing, further indicating that the design derives from the woodblock surface not carved away by the printmaker.

The Chiaroscuro Woodcut Process

The relief process, and furthermore the chiaroscuro technique specifically following the prints by Ugo da Carpi of David Slaying Goliath, begins with the engraving of Raphael’s composition by Marcantonio Raimondi. A drawing of Marcantonio’s engraving was used to create the “key block” or the outline for all other woodblocks carved, in this case a total of three: the highlight block, the midtone block, and the key block. The back of the drawing was coated in chalk and then placed on each of the three separate woodblocks. The printmaker would use a pencil or charcoal to trace the design through the paper, leaving a chalk outline on each block.

This remaining chalk drawing was then secured with an ink wash, following the chalk lines on the wood.23 The printmaker then had the drawing copied on all three woodblocks and could follow it closely in the carving process.

The carving of the key block would follow the lines of the drawing exactly, creating a relief of the image, in which these lines would be the only parts of the wood not carved away.

The other two woodblocks would be carved to follow the highlights and the midtones necessary to add depth and value to the image. Once completed, each woodblock appears to have a different part of the drawing’s values carved into it. For example, the woodblock containing the highlights may seem formless because the lines of the figures and other compositional elements are not defined on the surface the way they would be on the key block. It is only when printing that each of these carved blocks come together to form a complete image with values and depth.

23 Bamber Gascoigne, How to Identify Prints : A Complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical Processes from Woodcut to Ink Jet (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986) 23.

42

The block carved with the highlights would be inked and printed first, followed by the block with midtones, and finally the key block with the outline, typically printed in black or the darkest color of ink.

Editing Woodblocks

It is also possible for these woodblocks to be edited during the printing process. If the printmaker decided he did not like the way one of the woodblock layers printed, he could easily carve additional pieces of the wood away to achieve the desired effect. However, this only worked in one direction, as any wood carved away could not be returned easily. Wood pieces, often called “plugs,” could be inserted and adhered to the area of loss. However, a noticeable seam often remains and can be viewed in the final print which is not desirable. This can be seen in between the second and third states of Ugo’s print David Slaying Goliath (Fig. 14-15). It is typical for printmakers to create proofs, or prints made during the carving process, to see the current state of the block prior to printing the final version.24 It is important for the printmaker to line up each of these woodblocks precisely during this process. A registration frame can be made to exactly fit to the woodblocks and paper size used. In printmaking, registration is the process of correlating overlapping colors onto a single image. A frame allows for the location of both woodblock and paper to be assured and the images printed would fit each other perfectly after each layer.25

24 Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials, 50.

25 Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials, 71.

43

Single Woodblock Reductive Method

The chiaroscuro effect could also be achieved using a single woodblock. This is known as the “waste” or “reductive” method and can be challenging for the printmaker as it cannot be reversed. This process involves the removal of the relief image at each stage of printing a new color, until eventually only the last color layer, the key, is left remaining on the block.26 This process restricted the order in which the colors could be printed, as you could not return to the first color once you proceeded to the next. The key block, or the final layer printed, contained only the outline of the initial design in which all other information, highlights and mid-tones, would be carved away. For example, first the printmaker would carve the highlights into the single woodblock, which would then be inked in the lightest tone of pigment and printed onto all the sheets of paper desired for the edition. The printmaker would then carve the mid-tones onto that same woodblock and repeat this printing process. This is continued for the final key block layer previously discussed, and further until the desired final image is achieved. More wood is carved away after each layer, making this process difficult as it does not allow for adjustments or edits to be made. Additionally, the amount of prints produced would need to be planned in advance. The printmaker would have to start from the beginning with a new woodblock if he wanted to return to the first layer. It is known that the UAMA’s David Slaying Goliath was printed with multiple blocks and not using this single block, reductive method because the later layers, such as the top black ink layer, or key block, is in areas where the previous layer, the mid- tone brown, is not present (Fig. 10-12). If it was produced with a single woodblock, this would

26 Gascoigne, How to Identify Prints : A Complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical Processes from Woodcut to Ink Jet, 26.

44

not be possible as the areas where the top layer are would have been carved away when the mid- tone layer was printed.

Printmaking Materials: Chiaroscuro Woodcut

Most of what can be gathered about specific types of materials and tools used by early modern printmakers comes indirectly from related sources such as records of early book printers and Renaissance publishing houses.27 Techniques were typically developed in the workshop and passed down to apprentices without being recorded in any lasting way. Inventories of workshop supplies, and even more so contracts, are also rare since printmakers did not usually work on commission. Therefore, it can be challenging to identify a standard set of materials used by printmakers even when they worked in similar geographic locations. Since workshop records are lacking, analysis of the materials and the physical evidence intrinsic to the prints themselves enables us to infer the process of printing chiaroscuro woodcuts in the sixteenth century.28

Woodblocks

The wood used for printmaking blocks needed to be resilient and capable of accommodating the precision of relief cutting. The planks also needed to have greater density and stability to endure the pressure under the press and to potentially survive multiple decades of printing. This quality of wood was valuable and, depending on the region, it could be difficult to obtain. Precise documentation detailing the exact woods used is scarce. In Cennino Cennini’s

Trattato della Pittura from 1390, he recommends pearwood or nut wood blocks for textile

27 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 14.

28 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 256.

45

printing.29 It is likely that the wood of fruit or nut trees was also used for woodcut relief printing.

The planks were generally cut from the ends of a log sawn parallel to the grain.30 Therefore when warping did occur, the woodblocks would split down their longer axis. Warping is caused by exposure to moisture in the air over time. A trained craftsman wishing to preserve his carved block for additional printing in years to come, could cover it in wax or oils to prevent warping and protect it from the humidity and other environmental effects.

The basic tools used to create a woodcut are much the same as they are now. A simple knife pointed at the tip and beveled along one side of the blade was standard for any craftsmen

(Fig. 17).31 These knives also varied in size and shape in order to produce wider or narrower lines. They would need to be consistently sharpened on a wet stone to maintain their precision and production of delicate linework.

Today, woodblocks for printmaking are still made from fruit and nut tree wood. Cherry, shina, and boxwood are the most commonly used, although, linoleum, scratch foam, and gomuban are also used as relief blocks. Cherry wood is most comparable to the pear wood planks used in the sixteenth century.32 Cherry planks have their drawbacks; they tend to warp easily, and their size is limited by the trees available. Today cherry wood planks are made from black cherry trees which are native to the New England area.33 The wood is very dense and close-grained because it grows in the cold climate. The wood is milled and then air-dried for four

29 Cennino Cennini and Fernando Tempesti, Il Libro dell’Arte, o, Trattato della Pittura (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932).

30 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 23.

31 Sotriffer, Printmaking; History and Technique, 16.

32 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 257.

33 “McClain’s Printmaking Supplies,” McClain’s Printmaking Supplies, 2019, http://www.imcclains.com/

46

years to achieve low amounts of humidity similar to how wood was treated before carving in the early modern period.

Linoleum blocks are made of a rubber slab mounted on a wooden board. These blocks are commonly used for beginning printmakers as their surface is soft and easy to carve into with a knife while still learning the technique.34 For the same reason, scratch foam and gomuban are also used for beginner courses. Scratch foam is most commonly used with children’s printmaking classes because simple objects such as a pen point or a stick can be used to make marks on the sheet.35 Gomuban is a rubber block typically used in Japanese classrooms. The material is comparable to that of a white eraser and is very easy to carve into. All of these materials, despite their ease and malleability, are capable of receiving precise mark-making and are perfect for a beginning student to work on before advancing to hard wood.

Ink Processing

In the fourteenth century, colored, oil-based inks were used to print woodblock-decorated textiles in Europe. It was not until the invention of movable type and the printing press by

Johann Gutenberg around 1440 that printing inks developed into well formulated and refined consistencies.36 In the early sixteenth century, ink was made by mixing pigments or insoluble colored materials with a liquid vehicle. Additionally, by the mid-sixteenth century, inks were fabricated by trade specialists, resulting in the establishment of some quality standards.37 To expedite this manufacturing process, larger workshops would grind and mix their own ink,

34 Cerese Vaden (Printmaking Professor) in discussion with the author, February 2019.

35 “McClain’s Printmaking Supplies,” McClain’s Printmaking Supplies, 2019, http://www.imcclains.com/

36 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 257.

37 Ibid.

47

similar to the treatment of pigments in a painter’s studio. Pigments could be created by grinding up a variety of different mineral or vegetal sources. Without trade networks, the artist would be limited to local resources for the creation of colors in his images. Historic recipes for chiaroscuro printing inks are challenging to come by. Therefore, two Renaissance treatises on the printing of textiles with oil-based, colored inks provide valuable insight: Cennino Cennini’s Il Libro dell’Arte and the Nurnberger Kunstbuch both originating from the fifteenth century.38 Il Libro dell’Arte details the basic recipes for inks of lamp black, red lead, vermilion, indigo, and lead white; The Nurnberger Kunstbuch mentions vermilion, indigo, and lead white, as well as ochre and verdigris.

Pigments required some processing from the raw state. First, they were cleansed of impurities and then ground to the desired level of coarseness. The most effective printing inks for the chiaroscuro woodcut technique possessed a uniform and smooth consistency which required finely ground pigments and moderately viscous binding agents.39 The liquid vehicle or binding agent determined the way the ink flowed as well as its drying properties.40 It also acted as the adhesive component which bound the colored pigments to the surface of the paper. Historical recipes mention the use of organic oils, such as linseed and walnut, often in combination with natural resins to thicken the binder and hasten drying.41 Moreover, as early as the fourteenth century, organic oils for printing ink were thermally treated through sun exposure, boiling, or

38 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 257.

39 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258.

40 Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials, 36.

41 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 257.

48

even burning.42 This process modified the properties of the binder, increasing its viscosity. A moderate level of viscosity or stickiness was desired to cleanly transfer the ink from the woodblock to the paper in the printing process. However, too much tack could cause performance problems with the ink.

The color of the printed ink perceived by the viewer would depend on the amount of light which the pigment absorbs and the amount it reflects back. Darker colors, such as black, absorb more light or energy, while brighter colors absorb less.43 The darker the tone of pigment, the more intense the color is perceived by the viewer. To maintain the quality of the colors and layers in the printing process, each layer of ink would need to dry hard to prevent smudging or mixing of the pigments on the paper. The ink dries mainly through oxidation of the liquid vehicle, in this case organic oil, although there is some absorption by the paper support.44 In this process the vehicle reacts chemically and produces large molecules which form a hard film.

Analysis of the Inks Present in the UAMA print

Based on a survey conducted in 2018 by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and

Linda Stiber Morenus of seventy-two chiaroscuro woodcut prints from this period, the most predominant pigments found are as follows: vermilion, indigo, lead white, ochres, copper-based pigments (such as verdigris), orpiment, and carbon black. Additionally several organic colorants

42 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258.

43 Margaret Holben. Ellis, J. Paul Getty Trust, and American Association for State Local History, The Care of Prints and Drawings. American Association for State and Local History Book Series (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1995) 47.

44 John Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials, 36.

49

were also identified, including yellow, green, and brown substances.45 All known versions of

Ugo’s David Slaying Goliath were made with three different layers of ink. Most known versions of this print are produced with either blue or brown tones of ink. The University of Arizona

Museum of Art’s copy of David Slaying Goliath is printed with brown tones. It is most likely that the highlight and midtone inks are both ochres, and the darkest ink is carbon black.

If ochre was used for both the midtone and highlight layers, it is possible that the highlight ink is a “tint” of the midtone.46 This means lead white ink was mixed into the original ochre ink batch used for the midtone, therefore creating a lighter tint to be used for the highlights. If this is the case, then the UAMA’s David Slaying Goliath is not faded and has not lost any original detail, but rather this was the printmaker’s choice of color. On the other hand, if the highlight layer was not a tint of ochre and has faded significantly over time, it is likely a lake pigment or an organic colorant, both of which were commonly used in chiaroscuro woodcuts and are prone to deteriorate when exposed to light.47 Lake pigments are an insoluble organic material made from dyes. They are manufactured by precipitating a soluble dye with an inorganic mordant, usually a metallic salt such as calcium carbonate.48 Generally, lake pigments are dispersible in oils and therefore could be mixed with the same binding agents as regular pigments to create printing inks.

45 Morenus, Eng, Takahatake and. Rambaldi, 16th and 17th Century Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcuts: Instrumental Analysis, Degradation, and Conservation, 238-271.

46 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 268.

47 Linda Stiber Morenus (Paper Conservator) in discussion with the author, March 2019.

48 “Lake Pigment,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed March, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/technology/lake- pigment.

50

X-ray fluorescence (XRF) can help to confirm the presence of an ochre or an inorganic mordant in the highlight ink layer.49 This testing would determine whether the UAMA print has faded or if the highlight layer is the original color. XRF technology reads the elemental composition of the sample material by measuring the fluorescent, secondary X-ray emitted from the sample when it is excited by a primary X-ray source.50 Each element produces its own set of fluorescent X-rays which are unique to that element, similar to a finger print. When the primary

X-ray from the XRF machine excites the target atoms, it causes electrons to transfer in and out of the electron orbitals surrounding the nucleus. Energy peaks of varying intensities are created on a spectrum read by the device and depicted graphically. Testing using the portable XRF machine in the Arizona State Museum’s Conservation Lab showed high amounts of lead, iron, and arsenic in the highlight layer of ink.51 (Fig. 18-19) This supports my hypothesis that the highlight layer ink is a “tint” of the midtone ink, meaning the ink is a mixture of an ochre and lead white.

X-rays are also used in X-radiography to enhance understanding of the materials and provide information for condition assessment. The radiographic image is the record of how the radiation is absorbed, transmitted, or scattered by an object.52 X-rays, like visible light, are a wavelike form of electromagnetic energy carried by particles called photons. The key difference between X-rays and visible light, however, is the amount of energy of the individual photons, measured as the wavelength of the rays. For example, shorter wavelengths have higher

49 Linda Stiber Morenus (Paper Conservator) in discussion with the author, March 2019.

50 “X-ray Fluorescence,” Geochemical Instrumentation and Analysis, accessed March, 2019, https://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/techniques/XRF.html.

51 See XRF analysis spectrum in the appendix.

52 “Digital Radiography,” Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, 2019, https://www.si.edu/MCIImagingStudio/X-ray

51

frequencies and therefore exhibit higher energy levels. Our eyes are only sensitive to the particular wavelength of visible light, which is why we are unable to see x-rays and other forms of radiation. X-ray photons, like radio waves, are able to pass through most things. Materials made of smaller atoms absorb less of these photons, while materials made of larger atoms, such as calcium and other elements, absorb more.53

The X-rays we view are essentially photographic negatives. Areas of the image which absorbed more light appear brighter, while areas in which less light was absorbed are darker.

When analyzing an image of a painting which has been tested with X-radiography, we are able to see the various layers of pigments and underdrawings because those different elements are absorbing and reflecting different levels of light back at the camera. In the image collected by the

X-ray cabinet in the Arizona State Museum’s Conservation lab, we are able to see bright areas in which the x-rays were reflected in the midtone ochre ink (Fig. 20-21). These areas are also the most dense in ink which likely contributed to their absorption and visibility. This x-ray image shows us what Ugo’s second block for the midtone layer possibly looked like since only the areas containing the midtone ink on the final print are reflecting back in this image.

Ink Viscosity and Printing Pressure

In the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s version of David Slaying Goliath, oily stains can be seen on the verso of the print in areas of dense ink on the recto (Fig. 22). This shows that the inks used varied in viscosity and were not well mixed.54 Moreover, at low magnification, we are able to distinguish pigment particles which indicates that the pigments

53 “X-Radiography of Paintings,” Victoria and Albert Museum, 2018, http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/x/x- radiography-of-paintings/.

54 Dawson, The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials, 38.

52

were not finely ground (Fig. 23-27). Finely ground pigments would take more time to process and were therefore more costly during the early modern period. The smaller the particle size of a pigment, the greater the surface area available to absorb an ink binder such as linseed oil.55

Therefore, if not ground properly, the pigment will not fully absorb the binding agent resulting in the oily stains we see today in which the excess was absorbed by the paper support.

Additionally, poorly ground pigments tend to yield short inks, or ink that ruptures when elongated, that does not flow well. Large pigment particles can also clog the fine, cut-away areas of the woodblock design, preventing a crisp impression.56 The quality of these inks significantly effects the quality of the final print produced.

The appearance of the inks today can also tell us a lot about the pressure used in the printing process. The term “squash” refers to the spread of the ink beyond the area of contact between the block and paper.57 This effect shows us that the printmaker applied too much pressure when printing, causing the ink to spread off the edge of the block, and enabling the paper to show through along the block’s form. The printing pressure has squashed the ink so much that the two separate lines of the design nearly meet (Fig. 11-12). Since this effect is the result of excessive pressure, it is commonly accompanied by embossment of the sheet from the woodblock.58 This effect also shows that the black ink used was less viscous than the other midtone and highlight ink layers. The pressure combined with the ink viscosity caused suction

55 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 267.

56 Ibid.

57 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 259.

58 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258. 53

between the paper and the woodblock, therefore creating the channeled squash effect when the paper was peeled off the block after printing.

The midtone and highlight ochre color both show spottiness of the ink on the paper (Fig.

28). This indicates that the inks used for these layers were more viscous and thicker than the black ink layer and that less pressure was applied. These spots are the result of stiff viscosity ink on dry paper. Since the ink is less liquid in nature, it does not come into complete contact with all the valleys of the paper during printing.59 The ribbed texture of David Slaying Goliath, which is also common for many sixteenth-century papers, can be seen under raking light (Fig. 29). If the design is printed when the paper is dry, it is less elastic and will not contour to the shape of the woodblock and pick up as much ink as when it is moist. It is also possible that the woodblock was not thoroughly inked, or that an uneven amount of pressure was applied. Ink was spread on the woodblock surface using leather daubers. These were mushroom shaped tools made of leather pads stuffed with wool or hair, and attached to leather handles.60 Today, rollers are used to apply a smooth and even coating of ink. Moreover, wooden platen presses were used in the sixteenth century for printmaking (Fig. 30). The amount of pressure would vary with each pull making it challenging to maintain a consistent pressure for each edition. This spottiness can also be seen in one of my relief prints where I did not evenly ink the surface of my woodblock (Fig.

31).

59 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 265.

60 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258.

54

Printmaking Ink Today

Today’s inks are divided into two classes: printing inks and writing inks.61 Printing inks are also further broken down into: ink for traditional printing, in which a plate or block comes into contact with or transfers an image to the paper or object being printed on; and ink for digital nonimpact printing, which includes ink-jet and electrophotographic technologies. Most colored inks today are a mixture of the organic pigment with a liquid vehicle such as linseed oil, soybean oil, or a heavy petroleum distillate. The organic pigments are made up of salts and dyes, including yellow lake, peacock blue, and phthalocyanine green. Inorganic pigments such as

Prussian blue, cadmium yellow, and chrome green are less often used. Black inks, like in the early modern period, are made using carbon black. Today’s inks also contain additives such as waxes, lubricants, surfactants, and drying agents to aid printing and to impart any desired special characteristics.62

Paper Processing

Aside from inks, the type of paper used and how it was made both contribute to the overall longevity of the print and its appearance. In Europe, paper was being made in large quantities by the fourteenth century. Paper-making depended on access to suitable rags and clean running water. Decent rags for paper-making became more available as linen began to replace woolen clothing. During the early modern period, paper pulp was almost exclusively composed of linen or hemp.63 After the rags were acquired, they were sorted for quality, then soaked in

61 Steve Ritter, “What’s that Stuff?” Royal Society of Chemistry, Analyst Publication, Volume 76, Number 46, 1998, Cambridge, England (ejournal), 10.

62 Steve Ritter, “What’s that Stuff?”, 10.

63 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258.

55

water and an alkaline substance such as lime was used to break down the fibers. The resulting lump was then washed and placed into a wooden or stone trough and mechanically beaten with a series of wooden hammers typically geared to a water wheel. The beaten pulp was then removed to vats. A deckel, or frame made from a finely stretched wire screen or mold was then dipped into the vat, under the pulp, by the vatman who then sifted the liquid away and over its surface to leave a thin residue of fiber. The deckel was then removed from the vat and passed on to another craftsman, the coucher, who then let the mold drain further and “couched it” or turned the congealed sheet out onto an absorbent felt. The coucher stacked the raw sheets and interleaved them with felts. After a certain number of sheets were stacked, they were put into a press and squeezed to get rid of any excess water. The pressed sheets were then removed from the felts and repiled directly upon one another, pressed again, and hung on lines to dry completely. After they were dry, they were then ready for any sizing or surface treatment needing to be applied. This rendered the sheets less porous and more oil resistant. Sizing was applied by soaking the sheets in a gelatinous substance made from boiled animal hides and bones. Lightly sized papers were preferred for the oil-based inks used in printing.64

Physical Evidence Observed

Evidence of this paper-making process can be seen in almost all prints examined today through the presence of chain and laid lines. These lines or impressions are from the wires of the deckel frame used by the vatman in the initial sifting of the pulp material. Every effect is from the lesser or greater density of the pulp deposited on the surface. Therefore any imperfect or uneven beating of the pulp can create a mottled appearance to the completed paper. Laid lines

64 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 16.

56

are closely spaced parallel lines visible through transmitted light. They appear as alternating bright and shaded areas. Chain lines are perpendicular to these and also appear bright and sometimes shaded.65 (Fig. 32) If the rags are not purified by clean water or there is an insufficient digestion of the pulp, knots may be seen as clumps or dark spots in the final sheet. A residue of fibers from the felts used for interleaving can also often be visible in early paper.66 In many papers from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it is also common to see a line through the middle of the sheets. This is caused by the hair ropes upon which they had been hung to dry.67 Another possible cause may be from the print’s storage in an illuminated manuscript as was common practiced by collectors.

I examined David Slaying Goliath from the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s collection with the help of Paper Conservator, Dana Tepper, and Photography Conservator, Dana

Hemmenway. While examining the line visible down the center of this print, we considered whether it was formerly stored inside a book and closely examined it under a microscope and with transmitted light. According to Tepper and Hemmenway, a paper image from a book would contain a severe mark from years of applied pressure from the other pages and binding. The line seen on this print is not sharp enough to identify it as having been a part of a book.68 Even with modern conservation technology, it would be very difficult for a conservator to repair a fold from a weighted housing like that. The paper used for this print by Ugo da Carpi is also very thin and

65 Carlo James, Caroline Corrigan, Marie Christine Enshaian, and Marie Rose Greca, Old Master Prints and Drawings: A Guide to Preservation and Conservation (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997), 40.

66 James, Corrigan, Enshaian, and Greca, Old Master Prints and Drawings: A Guide to Preservation and Conservation, 39.

67 Ibid.

68 Dana Tepper (Paper Conservator) and Dana Hemmenway (Photography Conservator) in discussion with the author, September 2018.

57

light, consequently a fold and containment inside the weight of a book would have likely ripped the print in half long ago. Additionally, the print shows no evidence of having been bound.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the line observed on this print is from its storage or use in a book.

Another possibility I explored for this line is that it is two sheets of paper “sewn” together. I spoke with Printmaking Professor, Cerese Vaden, at the University of Arizona, who explained a technique artists used in the past when they did not have sufficiently large paper for their design. However, she also stated that it is unlikely this print by Ugo da Carpi is an example of this because of its relatively small size and the variety of ink layers.69 Sewing pages together was time consuming and a lot of extra work for the printmaker. It does not make sense for a printmaker to waste his time sewing pages for this small print and matching the two halves of ink together, when he could just print on one regular sheet. This would also mean there were additional woodblocks involved, which would add to the amount of carving the printmaker had to do. This theory does not add up. It is most likely the line visible down the center of these prints is from the sixteenth century papermaking process.

Quality and Sale of Paper for Printmaking

Paper was not difficult to acquire in the sixteenth century. In mountainous regions and along fast running rivers, paper mills were quickly being constructed or converted from grain mills. Due to fast growth and expansion, supplies of paper were becoming easier to obtain, both locally and by shipment to areas where no mills were in operation.70 In areas where book publishing was active, paper supplies were more plentiful and easier to access. Additionally,

69 Cerese Vaden (Printmaking Professor) in discussion with the author, October 2018.

70 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 15.

58

paper could be purchased directly from mills or dealers. Throughout most of Western Europe, paper was sold at standard lots including, the bale of five-thousand sheets, the ream of four- hundred and eighty or five-hundred sheets, and the quire of twenty-four or twenty-five sheets.

Paper sizes ranged from the carta recute at thirty-two by forty-five centimeters, to the carta imperiale at fifty by seventy-four centimeters. A generous margin was also typically given by the printmaker for woodcut and intaglio prints to counter any possibility of movement in the press.71

This margin was usually trimmed down after printing and would account for any variations in these standard paper sizes and the sizes of the finished prints.

Although paper for printing was becoming a common commodity in the early sixteenth century, paper suitable for fine printmaking was still a challenge to come by. Watermarks were developed to indicate the paper’s quality and its dimensions. Some watermarks were created to distinguish the city the paper was produced in. In some cases, a city’s coat of arm was used for the watermark. However, not all watermarks indicate the paper’s manufacturer or the location of its making. The mark was made by weaving it into the wire sieve of the deckel used to dip into the vat. As the fibers settled in the frame, the wire design made an imprint in the fresh paper material. When dry, a translucent imprint could be seen in the sheet. Due to the trimming of the paper’s margins in printmaking, not all prints have a watermark. Later, a countermark was also added as a sort of signature, with the maker’s initials and the date. These marks appear on the half of the sheet opposite the watermark, so a fully intact, untrimmed sheet is required for useful dating and information, which is rare to find.

71 Landau and Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550, 17.

59

The type of paper used will also influence the quality of the final print since the paper does absorb some of ink in the drying process. Rough paper with a large fiber weave, like the paper used in the UAMA’s version of David Slaying Goliath (Fig. 1-2), as well as in my own print (Fig. 33), will cause the ink to look duller than a print produced on smooth paper with a tight fiber weave (Fig. 34).72 The thickness of the paper will also affect the final print. Italian papers of this period possess considerable variation in thickness and surface finish.73 Thinner papers, again like the one used in the UAMA print, enable more light to pass through them than thicker ones. Light is filtered once by passing through the paper and again by reflecting through the ink. Due to this double filtering the paper fibers can be visible in the ink layers on thinner sheets of paper.74 This can obstruct the quality of the image by adding additional texture to the composition which may or may not have been intended by the artist. Today, BFK Rives printmaking papers are most commonly used. They are made from one-hundred percent cotton and have a smooth, absorbent surface.75 (Fig. 35) Sheets are made from molds in France, using a similar manufacturing process to the one described previously, although the technology and resources available today are able to ensure the purity and consistency of the paper pulp and the sheets. The sheets are also thicker and much more even than the sheets produced in the sixteenth century. This also provides good support to the print when completed. The visible paper fiber weave is much tighter, and less light is filtered through, as observed with transmitted light

(Fig.36).

72 Gascoigne, How to Identify Prints: A Complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical Processes from Woodcut to Ink Jet, 27.

73 Takahatake, The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy, 258.

74 Holben, Ellis, The Care of Prints and Drawings. American Association for State and Local History Book Series, 41.

75 “Rives BFK,” Legion 25, accessed March, 2019, https://legionpaper.com/rives-bfk. 60

Art History, Art Conservation, and Studio Art

My diverse study of the University of Arizona Museum of Art’s David Slaying Goliath, and the preponderance of evidence gathered, lead me to determine that this print was not inked and pressed by Ugo da Carpi, but by another workshop after Ugo’s death around 1530. Ugo did however produce the three woodblocks used to print the UAMA’s version. The poor quality of the inks used, the thinness and texture of the paper, and the overall lower level of craftsmanship point to this print’s production by another workshop and not by Ugo. This lesser quality is evident when compared with earlier states of this print.

Through varying perspectives of analysis, I was able to gather information from a variety of sources. My art historical research provided me with knowledge of the historical context of the early sixteenth century including artist guilds and procedures, printmaking techniques and technologies of this time, and the materials available to Ugo da Carpi and other printmakers. My art conservation training allowed me to analyze and interpret the physical evidence observed on the UAMA’s print today, and to identify the materials used in the print’s making with the help of several conservators including Nancy Odegaard, Dana Hemmenway, and Dana Tepper. This scientific evidence and the data collected was able to confirm my hypothesis that the UAMA print was not produced by Ugo. The XRF analysis showed large amounts of iron and lead in the highlight layer of ink, indicating this ink is an ochre mixed with lead white. The highlight layer, which upon first inspection I thought was faded, was actually the artist’s original choice in color.

This color does not match any other colored inks used by Ugo da Carpi, who often used tones of green and blue in his prints. My studio art experience, learning various intaglio techniques including etching and engraving, and mimicking Marcantonio Raimondi’s mark-making, taught

61

me how labor intensive, time consuming, and challenging it is to create a print edition.76 This experience opened my eyes to the challenges of printmaking and the level of mastery required to produce images like David Slaying Goliath by Ugo da Carpi or the engraving version by

Marcantonio Raimondi.

In the future, to add to my research, I want to learn the chiaroscuro woodcut technique, how to make my own paper and inks, and to use these materials to further replicate the sixteenth- century chiaroscuro printmaking method in modern day. This would provide me with new insights into how printmaking functioned in the sixteenth century and the choices artists had to make in producing a print edition. Furthermore, I want to visit the collections which house the other copies of this print and to examine the various states of this print in person to look for additional evidence of Ugo da Carpi’s hand compared to print’s produced by other workshops. I am also interested in trying to identify the workshop which purchased Ugo da Carpi’s woodblocks and tracking the editions these other artists created.

76 See appendix for summary of my experience and specific techniques learned.

62

APPENDICES

List of Ugo da Carpi’s David Slaying Goliath Chiaroscuro Woodcuts in other Collections

First state, Royal Collection Trust, England, 1518-20

Second state, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Oxford, England,

1518-20

Second state, British Museum, London, England, n.d.

Third state, Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, MN, 1518

Third state, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, 1520-27

Third state, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., n.d.

Third state, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, early sixteenth century

Third state, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA, 1520-27

Third state, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England, 1510

Fourth state, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1502-32

Fourth state, University of Arizona Museum of Art, Tucson, AZ, 1518

My Experience: Intaglio Printmaking

I began by learning drypoint etching in which a scratching tool, or a metal rod tapered to a fine point, is dug into the plate surface; in this case we used plexi-glass as the plate (Fig. 37).

When the scratch carving is complete, the plate is inked and then the surface is wiped with a tarlatan cloth. While the ink sits in the incised lines, the surface of the plate must be clean for a clear print. If the plate is under-wiped and ink remains on the surface, areas meant to print as fine

63

lines can become blurred or even completely obliterated (Fig. 38). In a photomicrograph of my first etching print, this under-wiping can be seen as the printed ink lines are fuzzy and mixed in with the paper fibers (Fig. 47). On the other hand, if the plate is over-wiped, areas meant to print as fine lines may be faint if present at all. When the plate is inked and ready for printing, it is placed on a mylar template on the press bed. (Fig. 39) Today roller presses are used to move the plate through the press and distribute the pressure evenly. The paper is soaked in water for five minutes and blotted with a towel before being placed on the plate on the press bed. Damp paper is used for its elasticity and ability to reach into the incisions of the plate where the ink is sitting.

Several layers of blankets are also used between the plate and the roller of the press to further absorb the moisture of the paper and help to distribute the pressure.

Next, I learned traditional etching using a zinc plate covered in hard ground material. The same scratcher tool is used to make marks in the hard-ground coating (Fig. 40). The metal surface is not directly carved into, only the hard-ground material. Once the complete design is on the plate, it is exposed to a bath of nitric acid (Fig. 41-42). Anywhere the artist removed the hard-ground coating, revealing the metal plate underneath, the nitric acid will bite into the plate creating the lines. The longer the plate is exposed to the acid, the deeper the lines will be, meaning the darker the lines are when printed. My final plate can be seen in (Fig. 43-44). When I first exposed my plate to the acid, I let it bite for forty minutes, however the acid was too weak.

This is evident in my first print edition (Fig. 45) in which the lines are fuzzy and ill-defined.

Under low magnification, the sewing-needle-like effect and spottiness of my printed lines is evident showing the uneven bite of the acid in my plate (Fig. 48). To fix this effect, I re-covered my entire plate with hard-ground, retraced all my compositional lines with the scratcher tool, and re-bit my plate in a fresh batch of nitric acid. These stronger lines can be seen in (Fig. 49)

64

showing my zinc plate at low magnification. Furthermore, when I printed the plate again, my lines are much darker and clearer (Fig. 46). I also added tonal values using an aquatint technique to this version.

The final intaglio technique I learned was engraving. I chose to follow Marcantonio

Raimondi’s David Slaying Goliath (Fig. 6), which Ugo da Carpi also followed in his carving of the chiaroscuro woodblocks. Due to the amount of detail Marcantonio included in his engraving,

I chose to focus only on the main figures of David and Goliath in my version (Fig. 51), since I am an amateur and still learning this technique. Although traditional engraving is done on copper, I used a zinc plate which is a slightly softer metal. Even though it is softer, I still had a difficult time creating marks in the metal plate (Fig. 50). I used a burin which I sharpened to a point using a whetstone before beginning (Fig. 52). The burin is held with the rounded wooden handle in the palm of your hand and the metal rod held by the pointer finger and thumb (Fig. 53).

A lot of pressure is placed on the thumb, wrist, and forearm when making marks. As a beginner,

I could not work for longer than an hour before getting sore and having to stop. Since engraving came before etching, I think etching may have developed not only as a faster way to produce prints of a similar quality, but also as a less labor-intensive technique. Personally, I think I was able to produce finer, smaller lines with the engraving technique than with etching, though I am unsure if this is only due to my amateur level. I also had a difficult time controlling the burin when making lines in the metal plate. The burin would often slip out of the line I was creating if

I applied to much pressure or moved too quickly. Therefore, on my plate there are many areas of shallow scratches shooting off of my main compositional lines.

65

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrum Results: Highlight Ink Layer of UAMA David Slaying Goliath

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barret, Timothy. “Analysis of Historical Paper Specimens.” The Paper Conservator, Volume 13

(1989).

Barret, Timothy. “Early European Papermaking Methods 1400-1800.” The Paper Conservator,

Volume 13 (1989).

Blackwood, Nicole. “Printmaker as Painter: Looking Closely at Ugo da Carpi’s Saint Veronica

Altarpiece.” Oxford Art Journal, Volume 36 (2013).

Cennini, Cennino, and Fernando Tempesti. Il Libro dell’Arte, o, Trattato della Pittura. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

Corrigan, Enshaian, Greca, and James. Old Master Prints and Drawings: A Guide to

Preservation and Conservation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997.

Dawson, John. The Complete Guide to Prints and Printmaking Techniques and Materials.

Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1981.

De Simone, Daniel. Seven Perspectives on the Woodcut: Presentations from A Heavenly Craft

Symposium and Exhibition. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2008.

“Digital Radiography.” Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute. 2019.

https://www.si.edu/MCIImagingStudio/X-ray.

Ellis, Margaret Holben., J. Paul Getty Trust, and American Association for State Local History.

The Care of Prints and Drawings. American Association for State and Local History

Book Series. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1995.

67

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Lake Pigment.” Accessed March, 2019.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/lake-pigment.

Gascoigne, Bamber. How to Identify Prints: A Complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical

Processes from Woodcut to Ink Jet. London: Thames and Hudson, 1986.

Geochemical Instrumentation and Analysis. “X-ray Fluorescence.” Accessed March, 2019.

https://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/techniques/XRF.html.

Hind, Arthur M. An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, with a Detailed Survey of Work Done

in the Fifteenth Century. London: Constable and Company, 1935.

“Introduction to FTIR Spectroscopy.” ThermoFisher Scientific. 2018.

https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/spectroscopy-elemental-isotope-

analysis/spectroscopy-elemental-isotope-analysis-learning-center/molecular-

spectroscopy-information/ftir-information/ftir-basics.html.

Landau, David., and Peter W. Parshall. The Renaissance Print: 1470-1550. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1994.

Legion 25. “Rives BFK.” Accessed March, 2019. https://legionpaper.com/rives-bfk.

Maggs Bros. Catalogue of Engravings, Etchings & Drawings by Early & Modern Masters and

Japanese Prints. Maggs Bros. Catalogue; 514. London: Maggs Bros., 1929.

“McClain’s Printmaking Supplies.” McClain’s Printmaking Supplies. 2019.

http://www.imcclains.com/.

Morenus, Linda Stiber, Charlotte W. Eng, Naoko Takahatake, and Diana C. Rambaldi. “16th and

17th Century Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcuts: Instrumental Analysis, Degradation, and

68

Conservation.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 54 (2015).

238-271.

Morenus, Linda Stiber. “The Chiaroscuro Woodcut Printmaking of Ugo da Carpi, Antonio da

Trento and Niccolò Vicentino: Technique in Relation to Artistic Style.” In Printing

Colour 1400-1700: History, Techniques, Functions, and Receptions, by Ad Stijnman and

Elizabeth Savage, Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Plenderleith, H. J. “The Conservation of Prints, Drawings, and Manuscripts.” Museums

Association. London: Oxford University Press, 1937.

“Printmaking Glossary.” University of South Florida. 2018.

http://graphicstudio.usf.edu/gs/education/printmaking.html.

“Raphael’s Rooms.” The Vatican Museum. 2018.

http://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/stanze-di-

raffaello.html#lnav_explore.

Reeves, Eileen. “The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in the Early Modern Period.” The Structures of

Practical Knowledge. Library of Congress. Switzerland: Springer International, 2017.

Schweidler, Max, and Roy L. Perkinson. The Restoration of Engravings, Drawings, Books, and

Other Works on Paper. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2006.

Servolini, Luigi and Carpi, Ugo Da. Ugo Da Carpi : I Chiaroscuri E Le Altre Opere. Firenze: La

Nuova Italia, 1977.

Smith, Pamela. “Making Things: Techniques and Books in Early Modern Europe.” In Early

Modern Things: Objects and their Histories, 1500-1800. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012.

69

Sotriffer, Kristian. Printmaking; History and Technique. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Spooner, S. A Biographical History of the Fine Arts: Being Memoirs of the Lives and Works of

Eminent Painters, Engravers, Sculptors, and Architects, From the Earliest Ages to the

Present time. Philadelphia: George Gebbie, 1873.

Strauss, Walter L. Chiaroscuro: The Clair-obscur Woodcuts by the German and Netherlandish

Masters of XVIth and XVIIth Centuries; a Complete Catalogue with Commentary.

Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1973.

Takahatake, Naoko. The Chiaroscuro Woodcut in Renaissance Italy. New York, Los Angeles:

Delmonico Books; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2018.

“Ugo da Carpi David and Goliath.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2018.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/632712.

Weaver, Peter. Printmaking, a Medium for Basic Design. London, New York: Studio Vista;

Reinhold Book, 1968.

“X-Radiography of Paintings.” Victoria and Albert Museum. 2018.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/x/x-radiography-of-paintings/.

70