Individualism and Art

7/28/2019 Individualism and Art

1/13

Individualism in Art and Artists: A Renaissance ProblemAuthor(s): Rudolf WittkowerReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1961), pp. 291-302Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708126 .

Accessed: 09/07/2012 20:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2708126?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2708126?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/13

INDIVIDUALISM IN ART AND ARTISTS:A RENAISSANCE PROBLEMBY RUDOLF WITTKOWER *

Let me start histalkby reminding ouof a present-day henom-enon whichmany of us accept withoutmuch questioning.A jokeon paper by Picasso, a doodle by Paul Klee are snatchedup in thesales roomsfor thousands of dollars. If explanationsare given, wehear-usually witha shrugofthe shoulder-of a passingfashion, fan infatuation fthe public,ofthe flight f money ntoworksof art,and so forth.All thismay be true, but it is also true that the joke on paperand the doodle hold our attention;theyhold our attentionbecausewe know their uthors re Picasso and Klee. Withoutthepedigree rthesignature heseworkswould sometimes ardlybe worth hepapertheyare drawnon.It is the name thatworks he magic.Behind thename loomstheman, thegreatartist, boutwhomweknowso much,ofwhose geniuswe are convinced, nd in whoseintegritywe believe. Clearly,foranappreciationof theseworks, knowledgeof the artist'spersonalityis moreimportant han the visual evidence.Even thoughthe workmaylack individualqualityone cannotargue thatthe publicdeceivesitself, ince it evidently laces the artist above the work of course,oftenwithoutbeingaware ofit).The veryoppositealso happened in history. eneca reflected npeople whovenerate the imagesof the godsbut decrythe sculptorswhomake them.A generationater Plutarchexclaimed: "We enjoythe work nd despisethemaker."These somewhathackneyedobservations re of importanceformysubjectbecause it appears that the problems f individualism fartists nd individualismnartare notnecessarily eciprocallyelated.I thereforewant to separate these two aspects and discussfirst tsome lengthwhen,where,and whythe image of the individualistartistarose and thenmention,muchmorebriefly,omephenomenawhichwemayassociatewith pecialproblems f ndividualismn art.The criteriato assess these two sides of the inquiryare of anessentiallydifferentrder,forthe one problem s primarily socio-logical and psychological, he otherprimarily visual one. On theone hand,we have to ask what traitsof personality id artists de-velop, and what traits did the public attribute o artistsviewed as

*Thispaperwaspresentedeforehe FirstMeeting fthe nternationalocietyfor heHistoryf deas,held t Peterhouse,ambridgeniversity,ept. 1,1960.291


3/13

292 RUDOLF WITTKOWERapartfrom, nd superior o, the restof mankind implicitlyaluingthe artist igher hanhis work); and on the other and,whethertsomeperiodsnthe history f art one can detect ndividualisticea-tures otoccurringt other eriodsntheworks f artists.1In order o find ut what artists hought bout themselvesndhow the publicviewedthem,we have to rely on literary ources.Suchsources egin o flow nlyfrom heXVth century n,and firstexclusivelyn Italy. But a previous ack of this sort of literaturedoes notnecessarily eanthat artistshad no individuality.on-versely,venwherewe have a literaryraditiont our disposal,wecannot e sure hat,whatmight ook ike ndividual nd distinctivetraits, re not, n fact, egends r iteraryopoi.Before hewarErnstKris and Otto Kurz2 published n illuminatingollection f suchlegendswhich ad currencyn theFar East and n theWest nd mayeasilybemisread s personal haracteristicsy the uninitiated.WhenPliny tells us that the sculptorKallimachoswas nick-namedthe "niggler" ecauseof his over-zealouspplication o de-tail,or Apollodorushe "madman" ecausehe often roke p a fin-ished tatue eing nable oreach he dealhehadaimed t,wemayormay not be dealingwithfactualbiographical aterial.Nor canwebe certain hat he single-mindedevotion o work f thepainterProtogenes ook on the form ransmittedo us. We are told that,while ngaged n hismainwork,he ivedonlupins teepednwaterthathemight atisfyt oncehis hunger ndhisthirst ithout lunt-ing his faculties y over-indulgence."Nevertheless,hese and similar toriesprovethat the ancientworld,n any case at a late period, ssociated ertainbehavioraltraitswith rtists.n theeyesof an elite t least, rtistswere ookedupon, o use a colloquial erm, s "queerfish."Itwasnotuntil heXIVth centuryhat hetheme ftheextrava-gantbehavior f artists ntersiteraturenceagain. n theDecame-rone nd theTuscannovelle f theperiod hey ppearmainly s theperpetratorsfentertainingnd burlesque ractical okes.For Boc-caccio painterwasa manfull ffun, igh-spirited,uite hrewd,fsomewhatax morals, nd not burdened y too much earning. ndin one ofFrancesco acchetti's ovelle,writtenn the late XIVthcentury,nefinds painter'swife xclaiming:You paintersre allwhimsical, ou build castles n the air,you are permanentlyrunkandarenoteven shamed fyourselves!"his remarkabletatementsounds ike a prophetic efinitionf the bohemian,ut t shouldnottempt s toarrive tweightyonclusions.

1Lackof knowledgeompelsmeto restricthe followingemarkso the visualarts n thewestern orld.2 E. Krisand 0. Kurz,Die Legende omKiinstlerVienna, 934).


4/13

RENAISSANCE ARTISTIC INDIVIDUALISM 293It is an entirelyifferentatter f two hundred ears ater-tobe precise,n 1561-Cardanus,n hisDe utilitate,isting he char-acteristicsf a greatmanyprofessional en,described ainters s"fickle,f unsettledmind,melancholic,ndchangeablen theirman-ners."His assessmenturely eflectedurrentpinions.n fact, hematerialdescribinghe oddities nd idiosyncrasiesf artists romtheRenaissancenis vastand circumstantialnd helps o give ub-stance o Cardanus' ictum.In supportf his laim want osubmitome bservationshichmaythrowight npersonalityroblemsrisingmong rtistst the

time f theRenaissance.t would eem hatwith he breakingftheguildmonopolyn the course f theXVthcenturyhe artist's tti-tude ohisworkhanged.3nstead fbeing ubjectedo theregulatedroutine f a collective orkshop,e was nowoften n hisown anddeveloped abitscompatible ithhis freedom.eriods f most n-tense ndconcentratedork lternate ithunpredictableapses ntoinactivity.A contemporaryhosaw Leonardoworkingn theLast Supperdescribesowhestayed nthe caffoldingrom awn o duskwithoutputting ownhis brush, orgettingo eat anddrink, aintingll thetime.Thenfor wo, hree, r four ayshe wouldnot touchhis workandyetbe staying here, ometimesn hour, ometimeswo hoursa day wrappedn contemplation.imilarly,ontormo ould et outtowork ndgoaway n the eveningwithout aving oneanythingall daybutstandingost n thought,"s Vasari nformss. I neednot givemore xamples.

Solitude nd secrecy ecame hehallmarkfmany rtists.Michel-angelo llowedno one-not eventhepope-to be nearhimwhileheworked. intoretto ould arelydmit riends,etaloneother rtists,to his studio.The sculptor ustici xplainedhatone shouldnevershowone'swork o anybody eforet was finished. hythis nsist-enceon creatingn solitude? he answers not farto seek.Leavingasideprofessionalnd artisticealousies,t was theneedforundis-turbed oncentrationhatmadesolitude ecessary. t thethresholdoftheromanticgeGoyapersuasivelyalked boutthe ooking-into-himself,hespiritualmonologue. his attitudewouldseema suresignofa highly evelopedndividualism.o the outsidert appearsas the elf-centeredemand or pecial onsiderationytheelectfew.More thanonceMichelangelollowsus an insightntotheprob-lems that movedhimto the core.The essence s containedn thethree ines f a sonnet hatremained fragment:

3 It is hardly ecessaryo emphasizehat Florencewasmore dvanced venthan herest f taly,notto speakofother ountries.lorentinertistsre there-fore articularlyelevantor hefollowingemarks.


5/13

294 RUDOLF WITTKOWERNon ha 1'habitonteroPrima lcun, 'ha l'estremoDell'arte t dellavitaEntire nderstandingone an haveBefore e'snotexperiencedhe mmensityOfartandlife

That experience an onlybe gainedin isolation. And isolationspellsagony.His sufferings the red threadrunning hroughmanyof his let-ters. Alreadyas a youngman of twenty-two e wroteto his father:"Do not wonder f I have sometimeswritten rritable etters,foroftensuffer reatdistressof mind and temper." And fifteen earslater: "I live in a sordidway, regardingneither ife nor honors-thatis,theworld-and sufferhegreatesthardships nd innumerableanxieties nd dreads."As a man offifty e reports o Sebastiano delPiomboabout a dinnerparty:"This gaveme exceeding reatpleaure,sinceit drew me forth little frommymelancholy, r shall we callit mymad mood." Again, at the age of seventy-foure writesto afriend:"You will say that I am old and mad (che io sia vecchio epazo); but I answerthatthere s no betterwayofkeeping ane andfreefrom nxiety han beingmad." At about thesame periodhe puttheparadoxdifferentlyn a famous onnet:

La mia allegrez' la maninconiaE'1 mioriposo on questi disagiMelancholys my oyAnddiscomfortsmyrest.The last quotations seem to leave no doubt that the agonizedrevellingn self-reflectionas a satisfyingxperience o an artist ikeMichelangelo.But it would be wrong obelieve, s is oftendone,thatMichelangelowas an exception. n actual fact,he has the traits ofpersonality, nhanced and to excess,which we find n a numberofRenaissance artists.Michelangelo'schoiceof the words "madness"and "melancholy"

leads us on and I shall discuss themin turn. Madness not in theclinicalbut in a broader ense as emotional nstability r behavioralnon-conformitys attributed n Renaissance and post-Renaissancesourcesto scoresof artists.Oftentheyare called "bizarre" and "fan-tastic."An earlyoccurrence f thisterminologyn a historical ontext sto be foundin GirolamoBorselli's late XVth-century hronicleof


6/13


7/13

296 RUDOLF WITrKOWERpicture s derivedfrom uch marked ndividualistss Leonardo,Michelangelo, ontormo, armigianino,arocci, nd a number fminor tars.In addition, he question rises o what xtentwere hese rtiststhemselvesndthosewho observedhem nd wrote boutthemde-pendent n newor traditionalatternsfthought? o whatextentweremodes fbehavior,he ndividualizedayof ife, s wellas thetraits elected y writers,eterminedy philosophicalashionsndliteraryonventions?WhereMichelangeloalksof hismadnessndmelancholy,is re-actions ndhisthoughtsannot e divorced rom latonic nd Aris-totelian onceptswhichweregivenwidecurrencyn the age of theRenaissance.t is true hatMichelangelo y using hewordpazziato characterizeis stateof mindrefersohisnon-conformistbses-sions ather han o thePlatonic madness." et such lmostnarcis-sistic mphasisnpazziawouldbe unthinkableithout familiaritywithPlato'sconcept f puav(abywhich hepoetsand seers repos-sessed. t is wellknown hat Renaissance rtists ppropriatedhiscondition f nspired renzy o themselves,or t gave their rt theauraPlatohad conceded opoetry.Moreover, ristotle ad shown hatonlymenofmelancholicem-perament erecapableof manic'creativity. ichelangelo's azziaandmaninconia ere husclosely llied conditions hichFicino nDe vita triplici ad authoritativelyostulatedor hemanof genius.Melancholy ecame hepasswordor rtistic alent romhe Renais-sanceon,butas RobertBurton aidin theAnatomy f Melancholyof 1621: "theTower fBabel never ieldeduch onfusionftonguesas theChaosofMelancholy oth of Symptoms," hilethe clear-headedmystic . Teresasimply ecreed:Melancholyismore om-mon nourdaythan t usedtobe; thereason s thatall self-willndlicense re nowcalledmelancholy." perhaps oo iberalnterpreta-tionof thesewordsmight oncludehatmelancholytandshereforindividualism.Althoughn theXVIth centuryhe termmelancholy'cquiredmany hadesofmeaning, imothy right's etailed nalysis,n hisOn Melancholy f 1586,probably amecloseto the generallyc-ceptedusage.He described melancholics "suspicious, ainfulnstudies,ndcircumspect;iven o fearfulndterriblereams; naf-fectionad andfull ffear.. envious nd ealous .. out ofmeasurepassionate.... Ofpace slow, ilent, egligent,efusinghe ight ndfrequencyfmen, elighted orensolitarinessndobscurity."hishomomelancholicushowsmanyofthedistinguishingarks ftheraceof ndividualisticrtists.


8/13

RENAISSANCE ARTISTIC INDIVIDUALISM 297Looking ackon thisposition,ne feelsboundto infer hattheartists eveloped raits fpersonalityhichwould allywith urrentideason creative alent nd that onsciouslyrsubconsciouslyritersadjusted heir eportsccordingly.Is then hebreak-througho individualismnRenaissancertistsa myth-one fthemanymyths ependingn Burckhardt'shesis fthe iberationf the ndividualn theageof theRenaissance?Let us approachhis ricky roblemromnotherngle.We knowa greatmanynamesofmedieval rtists,rchitects,nd craftsmenfrom ocumentsnd inscriptions.n documentsheymaybe praisedas ingenious,earned,killed,xcellent, ise, dmirable,ealous,llus-trious,ndso forth.More mportant,nthe nscriptionshe mastersthemselves roudly roclaimheir wnand theirworks' xcellence.Thusabout1063Rainaldus, he architectfPisa Cathedral,oastedthat he had executed remarkablend magnificenttructure;generationater, anfrancus fModena callshimself larus, octus,and aptus.However nemay nterpretuch nscriptions,t is clearthat hesemastersaw theirworkna classdistinctromther rafts,as a unique ccomplishment.t waspreciselyhisquality funique-nessthatwarrantedhementionf theirnames.Can wedoubt hatthis ttitude eflectsstrongense f ndividualchievement?But howcanwe combine uchan interpretationith he socialorganizationnd socialstanding f artistsn the MiddleAges? twould eemthattheguilds,which,dmittedly,ecame ll-powerfulnotuntil heXIIIth century,xercisedn equalizingnfluence,orartistswere de jure and de factocraftsmen itha wellregulated

trainingnda wellregulated ailyroutine.pecialists ave come ocontradictoryonclusions: oulton elieves hat heguild ystemada levelling ffectn originality,hileDoren,the historianf theFlorentineuilds, oesnot dmit ny nterferencefthe ystem iththefreedevelopmentnd manifestationf individualism.t is cer-tainly ruethatthecitybreedsndividualism,utit is just againstthebackgroundftheguild-controlledraftsmanhat hepersonalityproblemsfRenaissancertists ppear s ofa revolutionaryatureandemphaticallyeal.We mayhave to agree hatthe ndividualwasnot iberated e-causehehad notbeen fetteredr,more orrectly,hathe exchangednewfettersor heold ones.With thisprovisoBurckhardt'shesisremains alid. f anywhere,tremains alid n thefield f thevisualarts,which urckhardtxcluded rom isCivilizationftheRenais-sance.It is an undeniablechievementfRenaissancertistshattheyraised rtfromhe evelofa mechanicalo thatofan intellectualc-


9/13

298 RUDOLF WITTKOWERcupation. y allyingrt to science, heydrove wedge etweenhearts nd the crafts nd, t the sametime, ose n their wneyes ndthose ftheworld othe evelofan elite. or thefirstime heartistswere lsocapableofseeing heir rtas an act ofself-expression.ndalthough he modern oncept f geniusbelongs o a laterperiod,statementsbound hat rtistsre born. or thefirst imenwesternhistoryhe nitiatedublic owed efore heartist ndacknowledgedhis special place in society.Duringhis lifetimeMichelangelowascalled"divine" nd ranked bove theprincesf theblood.Neverbe-forehadsuchhonors een accorded o an artist.It wasalsothen hatfor hefirstime heartist's ersonalityasplacedabovehis art. In his DialoguesFrancisco e Hollanda,thePortuguese ainterwhowas nRomebetween 538and 1540,makesVittoria olonna aythatthosewhoknewMichelangeloadgreateresteem or ispersonhanfor iswork.Whetherhis srhetoricalal-lantry rnot,the factthat suchan idea couldbe verbalized,llus-trates hedirectionf the voltefaceandshows hattheposition nwhich commentedt thebeginningad beenreachedo soon.Letmesumup: Theartists,reed rom heprotectiveondoftheguilds, aced hestruggle ith heir nvironmentlone.Early ntheXVIth century heyemergedn Italy as an idiosyncraticalrofes-sionalcastewith mmenselytrongeading ndividuals, hoyetde-veloped longthegrooves repared orthem.The modernypeofartist adcome ntoexistence.The reality fthisnewtype s put ntorelief y theviolence fthe reactiongainstt. As early s the middle ftheXVIthcenturythe individualistrtistwithhis foibles nd eccentricitiesas nolongerfashionable.'t was nowfelt hat rtists hould nobtrusivelymergewith he social ndintellectuallite.Vasarihimself,o whomanyform fextravaganceasanathema, eportsnthemostglowingterms hatRaphael had supersededhe qualitiescommon mongartists,.e. their etachmentrom eality nd their ccentricityd-mixedwithmadness nd uncouthness"un certo he di pazzia e disalvatichezza"). t almost he samemoment,he endofthe 1540's,Francisco e Hollanda ascribes he followingtatement o Michel-angelo, urelyn order o give t theweight fhighest uthority:"People spreada thousand erniciousies about famouspainters.Theyare strange,olitary,nd unbearable,t is said, while n factthey re notdifferentrom ther uman eings. nly illypeoplebe-lieve thatthey refantasticos fantesiosos-eccentricnd capricious."Thestrongestnd most lluminatingtrictureomes romhepenof GiovanBattistaArmenini,howastraineds a paintern Romebetween1550 and 1556. In his Dei veriprecettidella pittura 1587)


10/13

RENAISSANCE ARTISTIC INDIVIDUALISM 299he writes: Anawfulhabithas developedmong ommonolk ndeven mong heeducated owhomt seemsnatural hat painter fhighest istinction ust how igns f someugly ndnefariousicealliedwith capriciousnd eccentricemperamentpringingrom isabstrusemind.Andtheworsts thatmanygnorantrtists elieve obe veryexceptional y affecting elancholynd eccentricity."yquoting xamples f great ndlearnedmasters,ncient ndmodern,Armeninintends o drivehomehis point"that artistsmustkeepawayfromhevicesof madness, ncouthness,ndextravagance,orshould hey im at originalityy acting isorderlyndusingnauseat-ing anguage."Nevertheless,hebohemian,r rather roto-bohemian,ypeofartist ad come ostay, ut twasnowovershadowedy ts counter-part, eon BattistaAlberti'sar-sightedision-come-true:hegentle-man artist,whose asydeportmentndimpeccablemannersmarkedhim s a manoftheworld. histype, nthinkable ithoutherisingsocialand educationalnstitutionf the academieswhichhad theirheyday etweenheXVIIth andtheXIXth centuries,racedts an-cestryo Vasari's iterary ortraitfRaphael.During ongperiodsthe conformingcademic yperetainedheupperhand. t wasonlywith hearrival fthetruebohemian,he child ftheromanticra,thatthe tableswere urned nd thenon-conformingypewas onceagain ntheascendancy.The Renaissancertist's ightoriberationrom heencumbranceof theguildswasre-enactedn the romanticrtist's ightor ibera-tionfromhetiesofthe cademy. hespectreftheartists a mem-ber fa privilegedroup,s a kind fbeing levatedbove herest fmankind,lienated romheworldndcreatingnsplendidsolation,aroseonceagain: the mage f thebohemianook hape,fosteredsmuch ythebehaviorftheartistss bythereactionfthe societyon thefringefwhich hey ived.Thuswe see at the turn ftheXIXth century roblemsfpersonalityn themakingwhich, nderkindred ircumstances,ad besettheartists f the ItalianRenais-sance. Paradoxically,he untrammelledndividualismf XXth-centuryvant-gardertists, heirpersonalitynd social problemswereultimatelyerived romhe talianRenaissance,heperiodnhistorynwhich heyheaped hefullnessf their corn.

Themomentascome o turn romhemen o theirwork. shallbriefly entionere hree ifferentopicswhich eem ome ofa par-ticular elevance: irst,hequestion f individual tyles; econdly,thatof rapidchanges f stylewithin he work f one artist;andthirdly,hatofthenonfinito.


11/13

300 RUDOLF WIrTKOWERRegardingndividualtyles, wantto stress nlyone single s-pect.We can no longerdoubtthatmanymasters f the MiddleAges-great as well as mediocrenes-oftenhad highlyndividualmanners f their wn.How else couldweascribewith ssurance er-tain statues ftheWestporch f Chartreso thegreat evolutionarymaster nd others o his pupils nd followers? ttributingorks fart, henotoriousastime farthistorians,mplies n absolute rustinthe ndividualityf tylewithout arriersftime ndplace.But theconceptionfan individualtyle, heawareness f t,thewishto develop t in a definiteirection-this, believe, ouldnotexistuntilRenaissance rtists eganto see themselvess historicalbeingsn a new ense, o which hewritingfautobiographies,tart-ingwithGhiberti's,earswitness.t wasonly hen hat artistswereabletosurveyhepanorama fhistorynd make consideredhoiceoftheir llegiance. o medieval rtist ouldhavesaid orwritten hatthe rchitectilaretewrote bout1460:"I askeverybodyoabandonthemodernraditionby modern,e of course eferredotheGothicstyle];donotaccept ouncil rommasterswhoworknthismanner.I praise hosewho follow he ancients nd I bless the soul ofBrunellesco horevivednFlorence heancientmannerfbuilding."The freedomf choicewasaccompanied y a freedomo change.So far s we can judge,Renaissance rtistswere he firsto changetheirmanneronsiderablyromnephaseto anothernd notrarelyfrom ear oyear.Withoutiteraryvidence nd a highly evelopedtechnique f analysis t wouldoften e impossibleo statethatagreatmaster'sworks rom ifferenteriods re actually y the same

hand.This s true fmany rtists rom aphaelon andparticularlyso of modern rtists. icasso's bility o switch rom stylederivedfrom egro culptureoone basedon Greek ase painting nd sculp-ture llustrates ellhowthefreedomfchoice ffectsadical hangesofstyle.The change rom comparativetabilityo a comparativemo-bility fstyle s also reflectedn a newapproach o thetrainingfartists.n accordance ithmedievalworkshopraditions,ennini,nhis atemedievalmanual,writtennFlorencefter 400, dvises hereaderhat he tudent hould ollow ne masternorder o acquiregoodmanner. t theend of thecenturyeonardo eversedhisposi-tionby counsellinghat heaspiringrtist hould tudy otonly nebutmanymasters,partfrom ature. yand arge his emainedheaccepted attern f arteducation or lmostfour enturies.n arthistoricalargon hemethods described y thewoolly erm eclecti-cism"which ythevery reedomfchoicetimplies,hould tand,nfact, orndividualismfstyle, s it does nPicasso's ase.


12/13

RENAISSANCE ARTISTIC INDIVIDUALISM 301It is true, owever,hatfor ongperiods n thehistoryf artthefreedomf choice ecamellusoryecause twas made ubservientoa dictatorshipftaste nd fencednby an art heory hich, ollowingliteraryheory,cceptedmitatio s a central otion.A levellingnthe ndividualismf tyle esulted,ornstance,uringhe econd alfof theXVIth centuryn Italy, the secondhalf of theXVIIth inFrance, nd thefirst alf f theXVIIIth inEngland.This eda manlikeClive Bell, n a spiritednd notyet forgottenook of1913, othenot entirelyaradoxicalonclusionhatGiottowas at oncetheclimax nd anti-climaxf medieval ndividualism;forGiotto heclaimed] heads a movement owards mitation. . . Beforethe latenoon f theRenaissance,rtwas almost xtinct."I neednot fightgainstwindmills.n fact, he romanticoncep-tionofgenius penednew doors o an individual pproach o style.The romanticocabulary-enthusiasm,aivete, pontaneity,enius-reversedverythinghe academies,heguardians fthe Renaissancedoctrinef art as a rational iscipline,ad stoodfor.Blakepassion-atelybelieved hat Taste& Genius renotTeachable r Acquirableand arebornwithus" and Goya, thegreatestrtist f thefindusiecle, leadedntheprospectusor heCaprichosthat n artist mayremove imselfntirelyrom ature nd depict ormsr movementswhich o thisdayhaveexisted nlynhis magination."I am notconcerned ith he questionowhat xtent hese rtistsdeluded hemselves.utthey urely osteredgreat ichnessnd va-riety f personal tyles ndenhanced he potentialityfunpredict-able and sudden tylistichanges.Moreover,he fervent omantic

beliefntheuniquenessnd the nviolabilityf the ndividualedtotheconvictionhat rt s not eachable. venCourbet, ynomeansromanticrtist,cceptedhis pinion.I cannot eachmy rtnor heartofany chool," esaid, since deny hat rtcanbetaught,r, notherwords maintain hat rt s completelyndividual."Suchutteranceslsohelpto understandhepeculiar osition fthe arts n theXIXth century hen hegulfbetweenhegreat n-dividualist rtists nd an entirelympersonalrt production aswider haneverbefore: heautonomous,reative rtists tood side,whileyoung rtists ad to submit o thedeadening isciplinef theacademies.The nonfinitoffordserhaps n evendeeper nsightnto theprocess f individualizationhan problems f style.Thereare,ofcourse,nfinishededievalworks,utwherewe cancheck,tappearsthatthey emainedncompleteor xternal easons.WithLeonardoand Michelangelohenonfinitonters newphase, or tis nowtheresult f nternalatherhan xternalauses.


13/13

302 RUDOLF WIrrKOWERNeverbefore ad a tension xisted etween heconceptionndtheexecution f a work.But nowself-criticism,issatisfactioniththe mperfectealizationf the nnermage, he gulf etweenmindand matter,etweenhepurityfthePlatonic deaand thebasenessofitsmaterial ealization-oftenhesubjectofMichelangelo'son-nets-preventedhesemastersrom inishingomeoftheirworks.Later,withRodin nd so many thers,henonfinitomaybe duetoa deliberateecision obringhecreative rocess oan end at anymoment fthe artist's hoice, o that the torso, heroughly ewnwork,hehalf-finishedicture,he ketchyxecutionrethefinishedproduct. he intentionalonfinito equires newformf self-analy-sisand ntrospection,or he rtist astodevelop sophisticatedon-trol ftheact ofcreation. oreover,fonlyhalf s saidand so muchhidden nd hinted t, theumbilical ordbetween hework nd itsmaker s never ruly evered.n otherwords, he personalityf theartist sserts tselfnthework nd throughheworkmoredemand-ingly han t anyother eriod fthehistoryf art.Withoutryingotietogetherhe ooseendsof thispaper, may

yet claimthatwe are back at thebeginning; ornow we find heartist, ythe visual evidence f hiswork, equestinghepublictopaydueregardo hisgenius,o follow imevenwhere e seemsn-distinct,ure n his convictionhat all he does is important.hereadiness f the public o complywith hisunspokenequest as itsroots n the Renaissancewhichfirst aised the artist's ersonalityupon lofty edestal.ColumbiaUniversity.

Documents

Individualism and Art