View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives Sua mano and modo et forma requirements Balancing individual creativity and collective traditions in contracts for altarpieces in the Italian Renaissance Knut F. Kroepelien Masteroppgave i kunsthistorie Veileder: førsteamanuensis Leif Holm Monssen Institutt for filosofi, idé- og kunsthistorie og klassiske språk Universitetet i Oslo, høsten 2008 Illustration on front page: Michele Giambono, Coronation of the Virgin (Venice, Accademia), 1448. 2 ...non sii facta per tante man come pare verria esser facto, per non fare l’opera disforma; ma una di voy la fornisca, essendo obligati in solidum, più presto sii possibile. (...not as if it was made by many hands, like it seems to be done now, because then it might become disformed, but by one of you alone that are obliged by the contract, and as quickly as possible.) Letter 23 August 1476 from the Duke of Milan to Bonifazio da Cremona, Vincenzo Foppa and Jacomino Zaynario 3 4 Preface I would like to thank assistant professor Leif Holm Monssen for supervising this thesis with insight and interest, Ms. Mona Vestli for her crucial translations and Mr. John Waterman for his valuable comments on structure and language. Oslo, November 2008 Knut F. Kroepelien 5 6 Contents SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 11 2 THE CONTRACT..................................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 THE SUBJECTS – ARTIST AND CLIENT .................................................................................................. 17 2.2 THE OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT – THE ALTARPIECE............................................................................. 21 2.3 THE CONTRACTUAL CONTEXT............................................................................................................. 23 2.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONTRACT.................................................................................................... 25 2.5 THE SUA MANO REQUIREMENT............................................................................................................ 27 2.4 THE MODO ET FORMA REQUIREMENT.................................................................................................. 30 3 SUA MANO AND MODO ET FORMA IN ARTISTIC PRACTICE .................................................. 36 3.1 CONTRACT 1: PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA, MADONNA OF THE MISERICORDIA, 1445 ........................... 36 3.2 CONTRACT 2: MICHELE GIAMBONO, CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN, 1447 .......................................... 39 3.3 CONTRACT 3: NERI DI BICCI, ALTARPIECE IN S. TRINITA, 1454.......................................................... 41 3.4 CONTRACT 4: BENOZZO GOZZOLI, VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH SAINTS, 1461 ....................................... 42 3.5 CONTRACT 5: DOMENICO GHIRLANDAIO, INNOCENTI ALTARPIECE, 1485........................................... 46 3.6 CONTRACT 6: DOMENICO GHIRLANDAIO, ALTARPIECE IN SAN FRANCESCO CHURCH, 1490 .............. 49 3.7 CONTRACT 7: BERNARDINO DEL SIGNORACCIO, VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH SAINTS, 1494................... 50 3.8 CONTRACT 8: RAPHAEL/GIOVANNI, MONTELUCE ALTARPIECE, 1503/1516 ....................................... 51 3.9 CONTRACT 9: LO SPAGNA, CORONATION OF A VIRGIN, 1507............................................................. 53 3.10 CONTRACT 10: RIDOLFO GHIRLANDAIO, BELTRAMINI ALTARPIECE, 1517 ......................................... 54 4 SUA MANO AND MODO ET FORMA REQUIREMENTS AND ART THEORY ........................... 56 4.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 56 4.2 INDIVIDUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 60 4.3 ORIGINALITY AND CREATIVITY........................................................................................................... 66 4.4 BEAUTY .............................................................................................................................................. 71 4.5 AUTHENTICITY ................................................................................................................................... 77 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................ 81 ANNEX 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 85 ANNEX 2 ILLUSTRATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 91 ANNEX 3 TABLE OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................. 93 7 8 Summary This thesis analyses the use of two specific requirements in ten contracts for altarpieces in the Italian Renaissance. The sua mano clause required the artist to use his own hand and not engage in significant work shop delegation, while the modo et forma clause implied that the artist had to use another altarpiece as a model. First, the analysis looks at the impact of the requirements in practice; what effect did the clauses have on the paintings of artists like Piero della Francesca and Domenico Ghirlandaio? Secondly, the analysis looks at the relationship between the clauses and the developments in art theory at the time; were the clauses a result of shifting aesthetic preferences? As a starting point for this, the thesis analyses at the role of contracts in the art market around 1450 more in general and offers an overview of the types of clauses that were used. In a first conclusion, this thesis finds that the impact of the sua mano clause varied very much in practice. Despite clear and detailed provisions, artists still took quite significant liberties in the workshop. The sua mano clauses thus seem not to have been decisive in the development towards more coherent altarpieces by individual masters, although they were followed strictly in some cases. There are also few examples of litigation following workshop delegation. A second conclusion is that the use of different types of modo et forma clauses did not restrict innovation and new approaches to traditional altarpiece iconography. Actually, many other factors like the status of the artist, the relationship between artist and client, the quality and status of the model and the time and effort put into the work were more decisive. Thirdly, based on art theory around 1500, this thesis finds that the two requirements were indirect reflections of more quality-orientated clients in a demand-driven art market. Sua mano clauses were a clear indication of the client’s occupation with beauty in certain parts of the altarpiece, in particular the heads of key figures. The modo et forma clause shows that the client wished to relate to high quality models and masters. On the other hand this thesis does not find a basis for more elaborate arguments that have been put forward by other scholars. The sua mano clause seems not to be early reflections of an art theory based on the rise of the individual artist, innovative and creative art or authenticity. In fact, the analysis of art theory from the period and the contract clauses could not support any other conclusion than a confirmation of a continued quest for quality and beauty in Renaissance Italy. 9 10 1 Introduction This thesis analyses two specific requirements included in 10 contracts for altarpieces from the Italian Renaissance between 1445 and 1520: sua mano and modo et forma. Sua mano literally means ‘own hand’ (to be painted by the artist’s own hand). The word mano is Latin for hand and also the basis of the word maniera which means style, manner or way.1 The use of the artist’s hand will be analysed literally as a legal requirement, not in the philosophical sense.2 Modo means ‘in the manner of’ something else, whereas forma means format, i.e. size and shape. Modo et forma therefore generally means that a painting should be in the manner and format as some other painting.3 These two requirements and varieties of them will be presented in greater detail in chapter 2 as part of a more general presentation of artistic contracts. The sua mano and modo et forma requirements in the 10 contracts chosen here are expressions of clients’ expectations with regard to art in Italy around 1450. They indicate the clients’ aesthetical preferences, their priorities, ideals and interests. The aim of this thesis is to contribute to a better understanding of the commissioning process in the balance between the interests of clients and artists. Thereby it also seeks to contribute to a better understanding of developments in the relationship between artist and client, between text and painting, between innovation and tradition and between individuality and collective practices. The two main questions that will be discussed as part of the analysis are: a) What the impact was of the clauses in art practice? Were they followed up and how strictly were they interpreted?