The Invisible Presence: Cut-In, Close-Up, and Off-Scene in Antonello da Messina's Palermo Annunciate

8/14/2019 The Invisible Presence: Cut-In, Close-Up, and Off-Scene in Antonello da Messina's Palermo Annunciate

1/30

The Invisible Presence: Cut-In, Close-Up, and Off-Scene in Antonello da Messina's PalermoAnnunciate

Author(s): Lorenzo PericoloSource: Representations, Vol. 107, No. 1 (Summer 2009), pp. 1-29Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rep.2009.107.1.1.

Accessed: 25/09/2013 04:58

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 California Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Representations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:58:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rep.2009.107.1.1?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rep.2009.107.1.1?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/30

LORENZO PERICOLO

The Invisible Presence:Cut-In, Close-Up, and Off-Scene in

Antonello da Messinas Palermo Annunciate

For Charles Dempsey

The importance of comparing the study of painting, say, to that of television,or advertising, lies in understanding the different ways in which scholarsand critics make meaning from each medium.The insights obtained by the

heuristic strategies practiced in the study of one may well enrich the proce-dures used in the interpretation of another.1

Many great pictures are a bit illegitimate.2

Icons and Narratives

Whether in Italy or in Flanders, fifteenth-century paintersstretched the possibilities of pictorial narration to an extent unimaginableto their late medieval predecessors. Decade after decade, unwonted fram-

ings and compositional devices arose, thrived, and soon morphed again at afrantic pace, radically modifying the viewers perception of the time, space,and drama involved in sacred images. Of course, this artistic phenomenonhas not gone unnoticed by art historians: after Erwin Panofsky, Sixten Ring-bom outlined its emergence and evolution in a seminal book, whose titleepitomizes the essence and scope of this epochal transformation:From Iconto Narrative (1965).3 Predictably, Ringboms work gave rise to numerousother essays in which the differences and diverse interplay of iconicity andnarrative in religious images from the early Christian period through thefifteenth century were investigated, discussed, and substantiated. In thisregard, Hans Beltings viewpoints have exerted a well-deserved influence.In an admirable book,Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter (1981), Belt-ing rightly argued for a subtler distinction between the liturgical, contem-plative, devotional, and narrative functions of sacred images.4 Not only did

1

A B S T R A C T Antonello da Messinas Palermo Annunciate(c. 1475) is usually construed as the equivalentof an icon. Relying on the iconography of the fifteenth-century Flemish Annunciation, Lorenzo Pericolodemonstrates that Antonellos panel must rather be interpreted as a truncated narrative in the form ofan icon. From this premise, Pericolo also unveils the experimental charge of some pictorial devices used by

Antonello, such as close-up, cut-in, and off-scene./ RE P R E S E N T A T I O N S 107. Summer 2009 The Regentsof the University of California. ISSN 07346018, electronic ISSN 1533855X, pages 129. All rightsreserved. Direct requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content to the University ofCalifornia Press at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI:10.1525/ rep.2009.107.1.1.

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


3/30

he demonstrate that religious paintings can fulfill multiple tasks simultane-ously, but he also pointed out that the ritual, meditative form of the Byzan-tine icon was interpreted and developed by Western artists in multifariousways: originally the almost invariable archetype of a holy figure, it was usu-

ally inflected with dramatic and narrative nuances and endowed with visual,symbolic, and theological values. Beltings observations make one awarethat, whatever the configuration of a fifteenth-century sacred image may be,one must always wonder what functions it was meant to fulfill before beinglabeled and defined as an icon, an Andachstbild, or a biblical or hagiograph-ical story.

Probably enthralled by formal issues couched in the history and notionof icon, art historians have paid less, if any, attention to the disruptive conse-quences introduced by the increasing contamination of devotional and nar-rative formulas in the conception of sacred images at the outset of thefifteenth century. To be sure, innovative schemes of pictorial narrationforinstance Ringboms dramatic close-ups as practiced by Flemish and Italianpainterswere destined to alter and enhance the viewers devotional prac-tices. Yet at the same time, these innovations must also have put pressure onthe mechanisms of reconfiguration through which beholders decoded andmentally re-enacted painted stories. In other words, by changing the devicesof pictorial narration in religious paintings, artists inevitably discarded thenormative perception not only of the dramatic plot and its devotional impli-cations but also of its temporality and spatiality. Therefore, a whole range of

until then unforeseen narrative techniques and effects became the object ofartistic experimentation. Subsequently, some of these experiments turnedinto well-recognized norms and patterns: those of the dramatic close-up, forinstance. Othersmaybe too audacious for their timeremained unique andtestify to the many potentialities inherent in the creation of pictorial narrativesin the early modern period. In my opinion, this is the case of Antonello daMessinas Palermo Annunciate.

The singularity of Antonellos picture has been much celebrated, but sel-dom for the right reasons. As a general rule, the Palermo Annunciatehasbeen construed as an early modern equivalent of a Byzantine icon, or at bestas a truncated version of an Italian Annunciation. Although Antonellosfamiliarity with contemporary Flemish painting has been acknowledgedfrom Giorgio Vasari onward (1550 and 1568), art historians continue eitherto downplay its importance, or sometimesalthough rarelyto disregard italtogether.5As a result, Vasaris account of Antonellos sojourn in Flandershas been deemed a mere invention, even if no evidence has been found torefute it. This is probably why Antonellos Annunciatehas always been exam-ined in the light of the Italian early modern iconography of the Annuncia-tion. Since in that tradition the angel systematically faces the Virgin (even at

RE P R E S E N T A T I O N S2



4/30

the expense of her body, sometimes bent to the point of contortion), it hasbeen assumed that Antonellos Madonna addresses the divine messenger infront of her, whichas I will explain shortlydoes not make sense, and evencontradicts the pictures general layout.

To understand Antonellos Annunciate, it is thus necessary to read itwithin the purview not of the Italian, but of the Flemish Annunciation.Only on this condition can one seize the boldness of its invention, involv-ing techniques of close-up, cut-in, and off-scene absolutely extraordinaryfor the quattrocento. In a certain sense, Antonello here tests visual effectsthat a twenty-first century beholder would still consider operative andcompelling.

The Suspense Close-Up

Perhaps unknowingly, moviegoers and video-game players arefamiliar with what can be defined as the suspense close-up:6 facing the cam-era, the hero or heroine moves toward us, possibly in silence, looking for ahostile presence, invisible but sensed as lurking in an area contiguous toour own. By zooming in to frame the figures head or bust, the cameraengenders a sort of blindness in the viewer: as the visual field narrows, spacecloses up perilously. As a standard device, this close framing can be devel-oped in innumerable ways: the soundtrack may or may not reach its climaxat the same time, or the camera may dwell on or spin around the close-up

view. The undetectable foe could sneak up on the presumed victim from afarther, opposite spot, or turn out to be friendly, or even prove wholly imag-inary, as, for instance, in many sequences of Alejandro Amenbars 2001The Others. In sum, movie directors and video-game designers play with theaudiences expectations; they cash in on the beholders habit of associatingthis kind of conventional close-up with a situation of uncertainty, danger,and anxiety.

To my knowledge, there is no particular study devoted to the history ofthe suspense close-up in movies. In a brief informal survey, I came across anearly example of this cinematic device: a sequence from D. W. Griffiths 1912The Musketeers of Pig Alley. At a certain point in the brief plot, the Snapper Kid(Elsmer Booth), the leader of the Musketeers, along with his companions,stalks the members of a rival gang who have just left the scene. They skulkalong a wall to the right, silently, one after the other, until their chiefs faceoccupies the right half of the frame. The gangster remains immobile, face toface with us, his hat brim tilted in balance, while his eyes slowly scan ourspace, from left to right, as though he fears or anticipates an ambush of hisenemies from off-scene (fig. 1). The shot lasts but a few seconds. Neverthe-less, time seems to drag on, dilated by expectation.7

The Invisible Presence 3



5/30

I do not think that Griffith was inspired by ancient pictures, and, as ageneral rule, I tend to make a clear distinction between movies and paint-ings. Because the differences of mediums, technologies, and historical cir-cumstances are considerable, it would be inappropriate to compare aRenaissance image (still by definition) with an early twentieth-century moviesequence. However, I believe that some of the latters technical devices,albeit historically unrelated, find their equivalents in the former. The reasonis simple: anthropologically speaking, the procedures of visual inventionmay unfold in an analogous manner. Therefore, it is possible to discerncases of cut-in, off-scene, and suspense close-up in Renaissance painting.

Antonellos Annunciate in Palermo (fig. 2) provides a paradigmatic, albeitexceptional, example of this phenomenon.8

No source prior to the nineteenth century seems to mention the paint-ing. A late fifteenth or early sixteenth-century copy of the Palermo Annunciate(fig. 3), now in Venice (Gallerie dellAccademia), allows us to establish twoessential facts: the subject and the autography of the panel. In fact, it bears aspurious signature (ANTONELLVS MESANIVS PINSIT), and the Virgin iscrowned with an aureole, a feature that is absent in the original.9Albeit a lat-ter insertion, the false inscription confirms that the composition was ascribedto Antonello at an early date. Moreover, the aureole indicates that the womanportrayed in the picture has always been identified with the Virgin. Her iden-tity is corroborated not only by her blue veil and the open book on thelectern nearbycommon attributes of the Madonna in the Annunciationbut also by the existence of a second Annunciateby Antonello himself (AltePinakothek, Munich), supplied with the canonical dove and aureole.

With the subject of the Palermo painting verified, it is legitimate to con-jecture that Antonello edited the traditional setting of the early fifteenth-century Flemish Annunciation by removing the bedroom stage and theangel behind Mary.10 Consequently, he focused on the Virgins face, retaining


FIGURE 1. Elsmer Booth (TheSnapper Kid) and Harry Carey(Snappers Sidekick) in asequence of D. W. Griffiths TheMusketeers of Pig Alley(1912).

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1525/rep.2009.107.1.1&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=215&h=144


6/30

only the lectern with the open Bible on it. Having shifted Gabriels figureoff-scenethe divine herald, according to Marys gesture, has just glidedinto the chamberAntonello created the equivalent of a suspense close-up. Feeling an extraneous presence behind her, alerted by the salutation,the Annunciate reacts with circumspection and disquiet to her visitor,invisible to both her and the viewer.11 Hence, the Virgin turns her gaze toher right, still but anxious, to find out whose voice and presence close inon her. She is about to raise her hand in greeting, yet she pinches her veilon her breast, as if shielding herself from a potentially unwanted or intru-sive stranger.12


FIGURE 2. Antonello da Messina, The Virgin Annunciate, Galleria Nationale dellaSicilia, Palazzo Abatellis, Palermo. Photo: Scala/Art Resource, NY.



7/30

Point by point, I will attempt to elucidate both the importance ofAntonellos picture in the history of narrative painting and the unmatchedingenuity of its invention. So beautifully disruptive, in my opinion, is itsblend of hieratic iconicity and nearly anecdotal narration that Antonellosfeat was unparalleled among his contemporaries and successors. AndreaMantegnas close-up figure of Christin Correggio (dated 1493), albeit caughtin the middle of an imperceptibly nervous action, does not relate to any nar-rative context, and hence it reads more as a contemplative image.13 EvenAntonellos own second Annunciate(if it was actually executed slightly after thePalermo panelas sustained by some scholars) does not live up to its prece-dent, despite its many qualities and experimental characteristics (fig. 4).14 I canthink of but one single case that seems to prefigure the Palermo picture byinaugurating technical devices like close-up and off-scene: Paolo UccellosMadonna with Childin Dublin (National Gallery of Ireland), executed circa143135 (fig. 5).15

In this little panel, Paolo plays with perspective and illusionism in anexceptional manner. Using the frame as a window through which Mary


FIGURE 3. Anonymouspainter after Antonelloda Messina, The VirginAnnunciate, GalleriedellAccademia, Venice.Photo: Cameraphoto

Arte, Venice/ArtResource, NY.



8/30


9/30

like Antonello later on, finds a felicitous compromise between iconicity andnarrative: the almost immobility of Marys face revolving quietly to the right,her gaze rushing toward the intruder, proves the point. Unlike Paolo,Antonello literally creates an effect of suspense. He also intensifies theambivalence of the scene, rendering the subject of his panel ambiguous. Inthe end, the Dublin painting can still be easily identified as a Virgin with theChild, whereas Antonellos Mary at first glance might not be recognized asan Annunciate and instead be mistaken for a portrait.

Of course, there is no way to ascertain whether or not Antonello knewPaolos painting. On the other hand, it is clear to me that the Palermo paint-ing is much more indebted to the Flemish than to the Florentine pictorialtradition.16 Examining the Annunciatewill thus provide an opportunity toinquire also into the mechanisms of narrative invention specific to earlymodern Flemish painters, mechanisms that obviously differ from the prac-tices of the late Middle Ages and thereby mark the emergence of innovativetechniques of narration. As I shall explain, Rogier van der Weydens orAntonellos imagination somehow functioned cinematographically, freezing


FIGURE 5. Paolo Uccello, TheVirgin and Child, National Galleryof Ireland, Dublin. Photo:

National Gallery of Ireland.



10/30

significant, unprecedented sequences from the ongoing action of an earlyNetherlandish standard Annunciation.

As with many other works by Antonello, there is no certainty as to thedating of the Annunciate. In concordance with most scholars, I would place it

in around 1475, at the beginning ofor shortly beforeAntonellos sojournin Venice, which could explain its influence on Giovanni Bellinis S. Giobbealtarpiece. I will return to this point further on. The absence of the angelin relation to the Virgin of the Annunciation has intrigued some scholars,especially Federico Zeri. In 1958, he postulated that both Annunciates, inPalermo and Munich, possessed a lost pendant depicting the figure of theannouncing Gabriel. More important, he justified his statement by dismiss-ing the possibility that a quattrocento picture or piece of literature couldrepresent only one of the terms involved in a cause-and-effect relation,which would suppress a substantial segment of the action rather than repre-senting the whole istoria. For him, it is inconceivable that such an emotionaland psychological climax as the one [expressed] in Antonellos Annunciate. . .lacked the other pole or actor of the dramatic plot, of which the Virgin is butone protagonist.17 Although laboratory analyses tend to confirm that nei-ther picture was bound to a pendant, thereby forming diptychs, one cannotperemptorily exclude the possibility that they fit within larger, multipaneledaltarpieces. Yet, both panels more probably were conceived as independentworks.18 Be that as it may, Zeris observation indirectly stresses the excep-tionality of Antonellos endeavor, its boldly experimental character. Even

ifas Ringbom stressesthe evolution of fifteenth-century religious imagesincreasingly had recourse to narrative close-ups, Antonellos Annunciategoeswell beyond the mark of this historical trend.19 In fact, there is no other casein fifteenth-century art of a sacred story so condensed as to feature but onecharacter in the majestic form of an icon.

Of course, Zeri has not been the only scholar to consider with wonder theuniqueness of Antonellos Annunciate. In a short passage of his Only Connect(1992), John Shearman posited that the pictures beholder has a viewpointthat might be called angelic. In other words, viewers participate in the picto-rial action by playing out a previously unforeseen role: the angels. Shearmandoes not draw any conclusions from this assumption, thereby overlooking themomentous implications that this new role of angelic beholder could haveon a devotional level. However, he highlights the ambiguity of the Palermopanel, where the spectator may not recognize his implied role or may chooseto read his situation as external to that action, and to think of himself as no partof the narrative, as its witness rather than as participant. Furthermore, Shear-man also deems it possible for the viewer to avoid the issue altogether withAntonellos picture, taking it as representing merely the Virgin reading, notinterrupted by anything so specific as the angels message.20 In reality, it can be




11/30

established that in the case of the Palermo panel, beholders were never meantto experience Gabriels viewpoint. Nor could they interpret the scene as just areading Virgin, sinceas I shall demonstrateviewers must decode the ges-ture of the raised hand as an incipient act of greeting, hence preliminary to the

Annunciation. Therefore, the beholder attends the action as a witness.

Creating Cinematically

Sometime between 1425 and 1428, Robert Campin painted theMrode Altarpiece(The Cloisters, New York).21 In its central panel, Campinrepresented the Virgin seated to the right, her face almost frontal, bothhands holding the sacred text whose words she whispers, as shown by herparted lips (fig. 6). Her concentration is so profound that her eyes, partiallycovered by her downcast eyelids, do not move to acknowledge Gabrielspresence; the messenger, in fact, has just landed to the left, greeting Marywith his uplifted hand, pronouncing the canonical salutation. The innova-tion introduced by Campin in the iconography of the Annunciation bydescribing the very outset of the episode inspired several painters in theNetherlands. Besides Jan van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden elaborated onCampins idea in his Louvre Triptych, probably painted around 1435.22 Thereagain, the central panel depicts an Annunciation (fig. 7). Always to the


FIGURE 6. RobertCampin, TheAnnunciation, MrodeAltarpiece, The CloistersCollection, MetropolitanMuseum of Art, New

York. Photo: TheMetropolitan Museumof Art/Art Resource, NY.



12/30

right, in the foreground, the Virgin interrupts her reading after hearingGabriels salutation. With one hand, she rests the book on a low table serv-ing as a lectern; with the other, open and raised, the fingers unfurling, shereturns the angels greeting, as he approaches from the left and behind.The torsion of Marys torso and the orientation of her head make it clearthat, upon Gabriels entering, her back had been turned to him, so that shehad to pivot in order to identify her visitor. It would be superfluous toremark on the many similarities of setting between the Mrode and theLouvre Annunciations. Rather, I will concentrate on Van der Weydensvisual layout of the narrative plot, conspicuously conceived as a sequel toCampins. Advancing the action by a few seconds, Van der Weyden subtlymodifies the scenes emotional inflection. This time, Gabriel looks down toMary as if discovering her face for the first time: one handthe leftis stillgreeting, while the right uncurls and fidgets in a gesture that probably doesnot accompany his words, but rather voices his admiration.


FIGURE 7. Rogier van der Weyden, The Annunciation, Muse duLouvre, Paris. Photo: Runion des Muses nationaux/ArtResource, NY.



13/30

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the specific gesture performed bythe Virgin in the Louvre Annunciationstands for salutation. Not only do wehave several examples of such a gesture in Italian Renaissance painting, butan illuminated Flemish Visitation from the circa 1416 Duke of Berrys Book of

Hours (Muse Cond, Chantilly) represents it in an unequivocal context:Mary greeting Elizabeth.23 Certainly, the posture of the Virgins hand is atleast ambivalent, for, apart from addressing her cousin, she seems to welcomethe divine sunshine pointing to her lap from above, thereby symbolicallyechoing the Annunciation.24As a narrative afterword, this act of salutationaccords well with the presence of the scripture, which Mary holds with herright hand devoutly wrapped in her mantle, an obvious reference to her read-ing before the Annunciation and an allusion to the incarnated Word.

At an indeterminate time around 1456, Rogier van der Weyden executedanother Annunciation in the left panel of his St. Columba Altarpiece (AltePinakothek, Munich; fig. 8).25 Compared with its equivalent in the Louvre


FIGURE 8. Rogier van der Weyden,The Annunciation, St. ColumbaAltarpiece, Alte Pinakothek, Munich.Photo: Foto Marburg/Art Resource, NY.



14/30

Tryptych, this episode proves more symbolic in the treatment of the narrative.More specifically, Van der Weyden indulges in some minor anachronisms,pushing the limits of pictorial verisimilitude. Here, the Virgins right handlingers in the act of salutation while, turned to face Gabriel, she attentivelylistens tobut does not actually look athim. With his index fingerdirected skyward, the angels right hand both performs a gesture of author-ity and mimics a benediction.26 From a narrative perspective, the oppositeorientations of Marys saluting hand and her downcast face attenuate theimpression of surprise and fear suited to her character according to theiconographic tradition, underscoring instead the Virgins contemplativestate. Put otherwise, Van der Weyden aims to abstractbut not to eradicateMarys figure from the dynamic unfolding of the action.

On the contrary, Dieric Bouts in his circa 1450 Annunciation(J. PaulGetty Museum, Los Angeles; fig. 9) transcends narrative altogether.27 To theright, the seated Virgin, sunk in lofty thoughts, both hands posed in a sym-metrical act of adoration and meditation, apparently ignores Gabriels pres-ence behind her, to the left.28 Theoretically, the dialogue between themessenger and the Annunciate is not performed physically or visually; it hasto be inferred by beholders in accordance with their knowledge of scripture.


FIGURE 9. Dieric Bouts,The Annunciation, The

J. Paul Getty Museum, LosAngeles. Photo: The J. PaulGetty Museum.



15/30

In a certain sense, Gabriel ceases to be an actor and morphs into anattribute or alter ego of Gods inaudible, mighty voice and will. Evidentlyto emphasize the symbolism of the event, Bouts placed the episode at a fur-ther stage, sifting through any emotional details, thereby moving beyondthe angels irruption and the Virgins unsettlement. To reduce the narra-tive to its most basic form, Bouts thus had to set the scene in motion imagi-natively, extrapolating from the iconographic tradition those elements thatbest fit his intention. The Getty Annunciationis also important here since itmost likely had already arrived in Venice by the time Antonello sojournedthere.

Flemish artists could also isolate the Annunciate from the angel, by dis-posing each figure in a different panel. Around 146770, Hans Memlingdid so in the Jan Crabbe Altarpiece (Groeningemuseum, Bruges; fig. 10).29

Albeit separated on distinct pedestals and framed by adjacent niches, Maryand Gabriel continue to play out the Annunciation script as interactingactors. That is, their gestures insert them into a narrative context. Standing,


FIGURE 10. Hans Memling,The Annunciation,JanCrabbe Altarpiece,Groeningemuseum,Bruges. Photo: StedelijkeMusea Brugge/Lukas Art.



16/30

the Virgin raises her hand to salute the messenger while turning her faceto him. However, as in Van der Weydens St. Columba Altarpiece, she seemsnot to heed the angels announcement, and is instead intent on an innervoice that plunges her into meditation and that viewers cannot discern. Inthis way, Memling disconnects the gestures from the unfolding action, cre-ating once again a twofold (narrative and symbolic) frequency of recep-tion. More important, when opened, the panel with the Virgin appears asan independent composition, which strengthensor rather generatesapowerful off-scene effect; the Virgin then proffers her salutation to the in-pouring light, as if listening to its silent message. Curiously enough, thefragment of another Annunciation by Memling (Museum of Art, Philadel-phia), which represents the saluting Virgin bust-length, helps us imaginein an experimental way all the potentialities of a hypothetical cut-in proce-dure (fig. 11).30 Guessing from the figures posture the initial configura-tion of the whole painting, we could hardly make out that the Virgin isabout to face Gabriel to her right, much less that she is involved in thedynamics of a wider-spreading actionstill, this assumption is unequivo-cally confirmed by the iconographic tradition. Paradoxically, in compari-son with Antonellos Palermo Annunciate, this fragment seems even more


FIGURE 11. Hans Memling,The Virgin Annunciate, ThePhiladelphia Museum of

Art, Philadelphia. Photo:Philadelphia Museum of Art.



17/30

enigmatic. However, fifteenth-century viewers, if shown just this trimmedpanel, would most likely have recognized it as the vestige of an Annuncia-tion, and would not have read it as a simple icon.

From this brief survey a few conclusions emerge. Resorting once again

to an anachronistic parallel, let us compare the painters viewpoint to thelens of a camera. If one considers the settings of all these early Netherlan-dish Annunciations together, one will observe that, in spite of reasonablevariations in decor, the cameras position constantly runs parallel to thescene, opening into diverse perspectives by shifting across the foreground,catching the two actors, the Virgin and Gabriel, at the same delegated spots,respectively right and left. In other words, Flemish painters adhere to astandard scenario, unwritten and never explicitly agreed upon, but func-tioning as a linchpin of artistic invention. Thus, one could amuse oneself bysplicing together the close-ups of Campins, Van der Weydens, Boutss, andMemlings Annunciates, arranging them in diachronic succession, makingthem perform the sequence of the angels bursting-in and announcement(fig. 12). One will view the Virgin intent on reading, turning to Gabrielwhile saluting him, then pondering Gods decree, and finallyas we cansee in Antonellos Munich Annunciatepledging obedience by crossing herhands.31 If the experiment works out, it is not because painters acted likemovie directors but because they invented cinematically, elaborating on thearchetypical scenario of an iconographic formula. They played the scenein their minds, froze the shot destined for development, found innovative

ways of visualizing the script, and expanded on it. Unlike movie directors,they could combine chronologically differentiated gestures and posturesin the same actor, thus bringing about a multivalent action: an action inwhich the past, the present, and the future could be summoned simultane-ously, without overly apparent contradiction. This technique of invention,expounded by Italian theorists during the Renaissance, gave rise to a realrevolution in narrative painting, in Flanders as well as in Italy.32 The evolu-tion of narrative close-upsthe camera cutting into a formulaic setting,with varying angles of approachis but one consequence of this new picto-rial practice.

I could enumerate, if necessary, many other examples of early Nether-landish Annunciations characterized by analogous settings. Yet, I would liketo single out a print by Frans van Bocholt, alias the Master F V B, engraved inthe last quarter of the fifteenth century and certainly indebted to a Flemishcomposition now lost (fig. 13).33 Albeit the positions of the Virgin andGabriel are reversed, the engraving follows the same familiar scheme: theVirgin seated in the foreground, holding the sacred text, an angel alongside.More relevant, Marys left hand hangs aloft exactly as the Annunciates righthand does in the Palermo panel. In the print, although the Virgin is about to




18/30


FIGURE 12. From left to right, above: Robert Campin, The Annunciation, MrodeAltarpiece(detail), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; HansMemling, The Virgin Annunciate, Philadelphia Museum of Art,

Philadelphia; Rogier van der Weyden, The Annunciation, St. ColumbaAltarpiece(detail), Alte Pinakothek, Munich; Hans Memling, TheAnnunciation,Jan Crabbe Altarpiece (detail), Groeningemuseum, Bruges.From left to right, below: Rogier van der Weyden, The Annunciation(detail), Muse du Louvre, Paris; Dieric Bouts, The Annunciation(detail), The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles; Antonello daMessina, The Virgin Annunciate, Alte Pinakothek, Munich.

greet Gabriel, she appears detached, her face frontward, her eyes staring

into space, so that it is hard to say whether she is about to direct her gazetoward the herald or if she is just listening to his message. If we framed herbust and head in a close-up view, we would be amazed by the similarities withthe Palermo panel. Of course, these analogies are not fortuitous, since bothAntonello and Bocholt rely on the same iconography. In addition, this com-parison allows me to corroborate my reading of the Palermo Annunciate. As Ihave already proposed, the Virgin is about to welcome Gabriel, who entersfrom the left invisibly, his divine radiance preceding him, his salutationwarning the Virgin of the impending epiphany.



19/30

This is also the way Giovanni Bellini must have interpreted Antonelloscomposition (fig. 14). In his S. Giobbe altarpiece (Gallerie dellAccademia,Venice), the Virgin appears on a high throne, the infant Jesus astride her

right thigh.34

Instead of gazing toward the viewer, she tilts her face to theright, her left hand reiterating the greeting typical of the Annunciation, as ifwelcoming the sunny radiance streaming from the right and ahead. By allud-ing to the mystery of the Incarnation, this retroactive salutation reminds thebeholder of the Virgins immaculacy, and, indeed, other elements in thecomposition underscore this message: for one, the inscription in the mosaicabove Mary, which reads: AVE VIRGINEI FLOS INTEMERATE PUDORIS(Hail, undefiled flower of virgin modesty). As a paraphrase of Gabriels allo-cution, the greeting renews Gods delight in Mary. The bride, now also themother, greets the divine sunshine in reply. This detail, which seems to havegone unnoticed by scholars thus far, animates Bellinis picture by introduc-ing an almost imperceptible component of action. In a certain sense, Belliniexploited Antonellos unusual combination of iconicity and narrative byincorporating an analog of his Annunciate within his own sacra conversazione,that is, by developing the situation depicted in the Palermo panel, but at aslightly further stage in the sequence. In fact, the Virgins hand is here com-pletely uplifted, instead of being on the verge of rising. In an identical fash-ion, Leonardos Mary in the Uffizi Annunciation(147375) salutes Gabriel bydirecting her open left palm at him.35


FIGURE 13. Frans van Bocholt, alias the Master F V B, TheAnnunciation, Kupfertstichkabinett Albertina,

Vienna. Photo: Albertina.



20/30

The Two Annunciates

Side-by-Side

The cut-in performed in the Palermo panel was repeated byAntonello with significant variants in the Munich Annunciate. Here, he rep-resented a subsequent moment, when the Virgin claims that she is theLords servant (Ecce ancilla Domini). Even though this cannot be proven,


FIGURE 14. GiovanniBellini, Madonna andChild with Saints(SanGiobbe Altarpiece),Gallerie dellAccademia,

Venice. Photo: Alinari/

Art Resource, NY.



21/30

I believe that once again Antonello edited in a close-up view an obedientMary from a larger Annunciation, like the one depicted in Jan van Eycks

St. Bavo Altarpiece(completed in 1432; fig. 15).36

Not only does the Virgincross her hands similarly, her lips parted while uttering her acceptance, butalso her torso is disposed imperceptibly askew to visually intensify the headsmotion. Unlike Van Eyck, who had imagined Marys gaze turned heaven-ward, Antonello oriented the Virgins gaze to the side, as if clueing theviewer in to the angels invisible presence to her right. In this way, he under-scored once again the off-scene effect he had already opted for in thePalermo panel. Compared with this, the Munich Annunciate proves bothmore stylized and more rhetorical. Here, on one hand, the elliptical con-tours of the Virgins veil and, especially, face betray a higher degree ofabstraction, as if Antonello sought to fuse the Flemish and the Venetiancanons into an individual stylistic paradigm. On the other, he places empha-sis on the fact that the picture is but a segment of an ongoing narrative. TheVirgins eloquent response to Gabriel somehow breaks the delicate balancebetween iconicity and action characteristic of the Palermo panel.37

Despite the close-up framing so specific to an icon, Antonellos Annunci-atenonetheless invites the viewer to witness the preamble of the Incarnationas an unfolding, slow-paced action. The Virgins revolving motion is madeconspicuous not only through the position and lighting of her face, and the


FIGURE 15. Jan Van Eyck, TheAnnunciation, Polyptych of the Adorationof the Lamb (detail), St. BavoCathedral, Ghent. Photo: ErichLessing/Art Resource, NY.



22/30

asymmetric borders of the descending veil, but also through the dislocation ofthe pictures longitudinal axis: a slanting line linking the mantles main foldover the forehead, the nose bridge, and the pinching hand. Moreover, by plac-ing in the foreground, at odds with the panels lower margin, the wooden

table and lecternwhich substitute for the parapet typical of Flemish iconsand portraitsAntonello not only disrupts the impression of contiguity deter-mined by the close-up but also lures the viewers gaze to the orbit of the Vir-gins bust. Deceptively or intuitively, our gaze catches Marys solemn rotation,punctuated by the counterpoint of the fanning book. Transported by herintrigued gaze, the viewer is led toward the off-scene Gabriel in an attempt toidentify, with her, the invisible visitor. It is perhaps difficult for us to appreciatethe ingenuity of Antonellos invention, as well structured as a mathematicalequation. In a single shot, motion and stillness, drama and contemplationblend together in harmony. Antonello managed to transfigure a Sicilianbeautyso extraneous to any aesthetic canon, and thus certainly a portraitfrom lifeinto an almost geometric abstraction: a suave oval enclosed withinthe two intersecting parabolas of the ascending veil around the face and shoul-ders and its descending borders over the breast. This synthesis of the individ-ual and the ideal, the material and the symbolic, is so refined in its apparentsimplicity that only Raphael, at the apex of his career, could rival it, as evi-denced by his 1513 Donna Velata (Galleria Palatina, Florence): this secularMadonna, sumptuously veiled, offers her affection and fidelity through thediscreet, adumbrated gesture of the hand over her breast.

To clearly apprehend the extent of Antonellos endeavor, one mustimagine how difficult it must have been, in the depiction of the Virginsintrigued reaction to an as yet unknown Gabriel, to preserve the liturgicalfunction of the panel. In the end, it still had to serve on a domestic altar-piece, receiving its owners prayers and devotions.38 To maintain the balancebetween narration and piety, Antonello not only whittled down the Annunci-ation story to an icon format but also supplied the Virgin with the ambiva-lent gesture of the raised hand, through which she both salutes Gabriel andbestows her protection on the believer kneeling in front of the picture. Inthat position, indeed, the viewer could also liken Marys incipient salutationto the canonical imposition of the hand.39 To support this reading, considerGiovan Battista Cima da Coneglianos 15056 Montini Altarpiece (GalleriaNazionale, Parma), where the Virgin on an elevated throne imposes herhand on St. Cosmas or Damian in a gesture analogous to that of AntonellosAnnunciate (fig. 16).40

More important, by depicting a situation in which a response to an exter-nal soundGabriels salutationis alluded to, Antonello availed himself ofa pictorial device equivalent to what scholars of silent movies have morerecently defined as transi-sound effects: the representation of an ongoing




23/30

dialogue with an off-scene interlocutor, constantly shown in a separate frameby dint of parallel editing.41 In the case of the Palermo panel, viewers ofcourse had to imaginatively reconstruct the angels presence and his voice,

which they certainly did out of habit.42 In this regard, it must be assumedthat the transi-sound effect involved in Antonellos composition equallyfulfilled a devotional task. It is no coincidence that one of the most popularCatholic prayers to the Virgin, the Ave Maria, begins with the greeting that,though from off-scene, triggers the action described in the Palermo panel.43

In other words, the believers silent or voiced invocation to the Annunciatereplaces and echoes Gabriels salutation. Inadvertently, the viewer envisionsthe Annunciation scene in its entirety, filling in the blanks of the panel, visu-ally as well as acoustically. Consequently, the restrained view determined by


FIGURE 16. Giovan Battista

Cima da Conegliano,Madonna and Child Enthronedwith Six Saints(MontiniAltarpiece), Galleria Nazionale,Parma. Photo: Scala/ArtResource, NY.



24/30

the close-up framing awakens the believers imagination and piety muchmore effectively than would the representation of the whole episode. Fromthis point of view, Antonellos Munich panel evokes an altogether oppositereaction. By dwelling on the Virgins humble reply to Gods decree, Antonello

lessens the impact of the off-scene and transi-sound effects, so that thebeholder does not need to rewind the action mentally in order to under-stand the image. Instead, cut off from the dialogue between the Virgin andGabriel, the viewer ends up contemplating the brides steady humility.

The Advantage of Stillness

The crucial gesturing hand of the Virgin, and the fact of its being done insuch dramatic (almost showy) foreshortening . . . seems to me one of theelements in the painting that most disturbs the iconic balance. . . . The

fact that the recognition of divinity, or the advent of the divine, is done ina way that so insists on the this-thereness of the hand in a real space,intimatingalmost reaching intoa continuity with the space of theviewer/worshipper: this strikes me as almost as extraordinary a pictorialepisode as the cut-off close-up. Or anyway, a further dimension ofAntonellos achievement.44

Despite its iconlike format and devotional functions, the Palermo panelby no means ranks as an icon. This point requires explanation. Recently,Hans Belting has interpreted Antonellos Annunciateas an example in point

of a highly innovative type of early modern icon: the picturenow [embraces] the truth of the gaze (image) and [contrasts] it with the metaphorof the book (sign) as the domain of the intelligible (in the Latin sense of mereabstract, non-sensual cognition). Looking and reading [part] with one another.The image [responds] to bodily (visual) perception, while the sign [addresses] atrans-visual reality.45

To comprehend Beltings point of view, it is necessary somehow toassimilate Antonellos panel to a traditional Byzantine icon: a Virgin withthe addition of the sacred book. The introduction of the latter, in Beltings

view, modifies the perception of the image, inviting the viewer to bypass theconventional association between divine prototype and its representation asdeveloped by Byzantine artists and theorists. The depiction of the Biblethus opens into a new metaphorical dimension, in which the dialectic ofthe visible and the invisible, the figure and the sign, fully and allusivelymanifests itself.46 I will not discuss this assumption, which I do not embrace.Rather, I will underline the fact that, as a consequence, Belting misreads thePalermo panel. The Virgins gaze is not directed inward, pointing to aninner vision that escapes us, as he suggests. As I have already demonstrated,




25/30

Antonellos Annunciate, although deeply meditative, almost imperceptiblyturns her gaze to the intruding angel, as if caught off-guard during her read-ing. Furthermore, the particular action she performs contradicts the verynotion of devotional iconicity.

Lest the boundaries between the contemplative and the narrative func-tions of sacred images be blurred so much as to fade away, it is necessary todistinguish them from each other, though not categorically: they must bedescribed as virtually dialectical tendencies in the images invention andreception. However, as a general rule the icon, albeit provided with actionfor instance the infant Jesus caressing his mothers cheekdoes not invitebeholders to place the scene into a spatial and temporal framework to graspits significance and devotional implications. On the contrary, it beguiles view-ers into contemplation by transfiguring the image into vision; the representa-tion is therefore bereft of any reference to space and time: a quintessentialparadigm of the Childs sweetness.47Antonellos Annunciatedoes not belongto this category. To grasp its meaning, the viewer must reconfigure the entireepisode by reassembling its missing elements. As mentioned earlier, these arenot only visual (the angels figure) but also acoustic (the divine salutation);briefly, the image constantly points to the invisible and the inaudible; it relieson them for completeness. As a result, the composition calls for a preambleand an aftermath. Unaware both of the heralds identity and the messagescontent, Antonellos Annunciate has not yet become the mother of God; herhand, suspended in action, metaphorically evokes the meaningful suspension

of the moment chosen by the artist: a moment that will transform Godsbeloved bride into the receptacle of human salvation.From this prospect, the specific setup of the Palermo Annunciate, with

its characteristic close-up, cut-in, and off-scene, is the means by whichAntonello could give new form and meaning to the theological depthembedded in both the biblical episode of the Annunciation and its conven-tional representation in images. Visibility and invisibility, the before and theafter of that critical turning point in the history of humankind, already lin-gered in suspension, latent beneath the literary and visual surface of theIncarnations story. By focusing on the Annunciates close-up, Antonello notonly relegated offstage actors and attributes of the Annunciation to an invis-ible outside but also endowed the off-scenewhatever traditionally mightsurround the reading Virginwith an invisible force: that of making tempo-rality appear and divinity act. Paradoxically, the limits of the paintedimageprimarily its stillness and inability to unfold in time in front of theviewerturns here into an unexpected advantage. Probably no movingimage, most particularly the sequence of a movie, could suggest the mightyimplications of Antonellos painting, not to mention its collapse of tempo-rality to a standstill.




26/30

In the Palermo panel, past and future thus are summoned through therepresentation of an impending present. The allusion to different, thoughinterrelated temporal dimensions, the interaction between the on-scene andthe off-scene, the visible and the (as yet) invisible, the audible and the silent,

all of these are prompts for active reading, not exclusively for religious con-templation. By depicting the prelude to the Annunciation, to wit, the turn-ing point of both the Virgins life and humanitys fate, Antonelloquestionsor reassessesthe mystery of the Incarnation: from an axiomaticvision, it temporarily becomes an unfulfilled event, an invisible future. Thevibrant expectancy expressed by the Virgin in welcoming her uninvited visi-tor incites the viewer to measure the incommensurable scope of Godsinscrutable will. Gabriels shapeless presence and inaudible voice exceedMarys senses as well as the viewers. As Timanthes had covered Agamem-nons face in his Sacrifice of Iphigeniato enable the beholder to conceive theunimaginable, so too did Antonello conceal any sign of divine presence toimply its fearful, hopeful epiphany.48As a figurative litotes, the angels disap-pearance and muteness thus enhance the effect of dramatic incompletenessconveyed by the Virgins suspended action. In the sacred story related byAntonellos Palermo Annunciate, Gods invisible presence is about to incar-nate mysteriously into history.

Notes

In the summer of 2007, Charles Dempsey retired from teaching at Johns Hop-kins after training many generations of scholars. This paper is dedicated to hisoutstanding work on both Renaissance and Baroque art. It is also a token of mypersonal affection for and gratitude to him. This paper would not exist withoutthe vital inspiration of Alexander Nagel. His remarks on Antonellos panel

when it was exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in thewinter of 2006, deeply modified my point of view on quattrocento art. I amtherefore much indebted to Alexanders invaluable insights. I would like to

thank all the colleagues who read or heard this essay in its previous forms: Tim-othy J. Clark, Elizabeth Cropper, Thomas Cummings, Leonard Folgarait, JackGreenstein, Andr Gaudreault, Laurence Kanter, Evonne Levy, Keith Moxey,Larry Silver, Irene Small, and Philip Sohm.

1. Keith Moxey, The Practice of Persuasion: Paradox and Power in Art History(Ithaca,NY, 2001), 106.

2. Michael Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures(New Haven, 1985), 120.

3. Erwin Panofsky, Imago Pietatis: ein Beitrag zur Typengeschichte des Schmerzens-mannsund der Maria Mediatrix, inFestschrift fr Max Friedlnder zum 60. Geburt-stage(Leipzig, 1927), 261308. See also Erwin Panofsky, Peinture et dvotion en




27/30

Europe la fin du Moyen-ge, ed. Daniel Arasse (Paris, 1997). Sixten Ringbom,Icon to Narrative: The Rise of the Dramatic Close-Up in Fifteenth-Century DevotionalPainting, 2nd ed. rev. (Amsterdam, 1984).

4. Hans Belting,Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter: Form und Funktion frherBildtafeln der Passion(Berlin, 1981), 69104.

5. Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de pi eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del1550 e 1568, eds. Rosanna Bettarini and Paola Barocchi (Florence, 1971),3:306.

6. For suspense in movies and video games, see Nol Carroll, The Philosophy ofHorror or Paradoxes of the Heart(New York, 1990); Nol Carroll, The Paradox ofSuspense, in P. Vorderer, J. Wulff, and M. Friedrichsen, eds., Conceptualization,Theoretical Analysis, and Empirical Explorations (Mahwah, NJ, 1996), 7190;Robert Baird, The Startle Effect: Implications for the Spectator Cognition andMedia Theory, Film Quarterly 53 (2000): 1324; Bernard Perron, Sign of aThreat: The Effects of Warning Systems in Survival Horror Games, COSIGN2004 Proceedings(Split, 2004), 13241; Bernard Perron, Silent Hill. Il motore del

terrore(Genoa, 2006); Bernard Perron, Coming to Play at Frightening Yourself:Welcome to the World of Horror Video Games, in www.aestheticsofplay.org/papers/perron2.htm.

7. For the movie, see Tom Gunning,D. W. Griffith and the Origins of American Nar-rative Film: The Early Years at Biograph(Urbana, 1991), 275.

8. For off-scene in silent movies, see Bernard Perron, Au-del du hors-champ: lehors-scne, Communication13 (1992): 8597. See Antonello da Messina(Rome,1981), 18486, cat. no. 41. Fiorella Sricchia Santoro, ed., Antonello e lEuropa(Milan, 1986), 169, cat. no. 39. Mauro Lucco, ed., Antonello da Messina: Loperacompleta (Milan, 2006), 23234, cat. no. 35. See also Marco Collareta,Antonello e il tema dellAnnunciazione, in Lucco, Antonello da Messina,

6573.9. See Gabriele Mandel, Lopera completa di Antonello da Messina: Presentazione diLeonardo Sciascia(Milan, 1967), 99100, cat. no. 65.

10. For the iconography of the Annunciation, see David M. Robb, The Iconogra-phy of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Art Bul-letin 18 (1936): 480526; Lucien Rudrauf, The Annunciation: Study of aPlastic Theme and Its Variations in Painting and Sculpture,Journal of Aestheticsand Art Criticism7 (1949): 32548; Wolfgang Braunfels,Die Verkndigung(Ds-seldorf, 1949); Michael Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-CenturyItaly(Oxford, 1972), 4956; Don Denny, The Annunciation from the Right: From

Early Christian Times to the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1977); Jeffrey Ruda,Flemish Painting and the Early Renaissance in Florence: Questions of Influ-ence, Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte2 (1984): 21036; Gert Duwe, Der Wandel inder Darstellung der Verkndigung an Maria vom Trecento zum Quattrocento (Frank-furt, 1988); Marzena Chodor, Religious and Cultural Contexts of Images of theAnnunciation in Fifteenth-Century Netherlandish Painting: With Special Reference to

Dieric Bouts and His Circle(PhD diss., University of Bristol, 1992); Gert Duwe,Die Verkndigung an Maria in der niederlndischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhun-derts(Berlin, 1994); Stefanie Renner,Die Darstellung der Verkndigung an Mariain der florentinischen Malerei: von Andrea Orcagna (1346) bis Lorenzo Monaco (1425)(Bonn, 1996); Julia Liebrich, Die Verkndigung an Maria: die Ikonographie deritalienischen Darstellungen von den Anfngen bis 1500 (Cologne, 1997); Daniel




28/30

Arasse, LAnnonciation italienne: une histoire de perspective(Paris, 1999); Ann vanDijk, The Angelic Salutation in Early Byzantine and Medieval AnnunciationImagery, Art Bulletin 81, no. 3 (1999): 42036; Carol J. Purtle, Van Eycks

Washington Annunciation: Narrative Time and Metaphoric Tradition, Art Bul-letin81, no. 1 (1999): 11725; Sven Lken, Die Verkndigung an Maria im 15.

und frhen 16. Jahrhundert: historische und kunsthistorische Untersuchungen(Gttin-gen, 2000); Jessica Winston, Describing the Virgin, Art History 25 (2002):27592; Timothy Verdon, Mary in Western Art (New York, 2005); HannekeGrootenboer, Reading the Annunciation, Art History30 (2007): 34963. Seealso Jacques Aumont, Annonciations (Migrations, 31), Cinmas 12 (2002):5371.

11. To my knowledge, the only other authors who have correctly proposed that theangel is coming from the left are Mary Pardo, The Subject of Savoldos Mag-dalene, Art Bulletin71, no. 1 (1989): 6791, reprinted in Michael W. Cole, ed.,Sixteenth-Century Italian Art (Malden, MA, 2006), 44184, esp. 45052; andBernard Aikema and Beverly Louise Brown, Painting in Fifteenth-Century

Venice and the ars novaof the Netherlands, in Bernard Aikema and BeverlyLouise Brown, eds., Renaissance Venice and the North: Crosscurrents in the Time ofBellini, Drer, and Titian (Milan, 1999), 182: In another Virgin Annunciate(Galleria regionale della Sicilia, Palermo) . . . Antonello engages the viewer ina somewhat different manner. Here, the Virgin is seated behind a lectern,

which is placed at an oblique angle to the picture plane, effectively bridgingthe liminal space. Her reaction to the angel whoinvisible to usappears toher left, is much more subdued and decorous than in the Munich picture. Sheseems to be lost in thought and only through the movement of her hands doesshe betray her awareness of Gabriels presence.

12. The motif of the Virgin pinching the borders of her mantle in surprise or fear

at the arrival of the angel is not uncommon. See for instance the very well-known example of Simone Martinis Annunciationin the Uffizi, Florence. SeeAndrew Martindale, Simone Martini: Complete Edition (Oxford, 1988), 18790,cat. no. 12.

13. See Jane Martineau, ed., Andrea Mantegna (New York, 1992), 231, cat. no. 54.14. Lucco, Antonello da Messina, 254, no. 41; Mauro Lucco, ed., Mantegna e Mantova

(Milan, 2006), 84, cat. no. 9.15. Franco Borsi and Stefano Borsi, Paolo Uccello(Milan, 1992), 236; 315, cat.

no. 16.16. It is a much-debated question whether or not Antonello went to the Low Coun-

tries, as stated by Vasari in the 1568 edition of the Vite. For this problem, seemore recently: Till-Holger Borchert, Antonello da Messina e la pitturafiamminga, in Lucco, Antonello da Messina, 2741.

17. Federico Zeri, Un riflesso di Antonello da Messina a Firenze, Paragone Arte99(1958): 1621, esp. 1920.

18. See Lucco, Antonello da Messina, 234, 254.19. Ringbom, Icon to Narrative, esp. 6465. In connection with Antonellos Palermo

Annunciate, Ringbom writes: In Antonellos other impressive treatment of thesame subject in Palermo, Museo Nazionale, the symmetrical composition hasbeen enlivened on the lines of a Chalkoprateia[that is, a Byzantine Virgin in theact of praying, one or two hands lifted and turned to the beholder]. Instead ofthe stiff position of the hands of the frontal orans, we behold the Virgin raising




29/30

her right hand while at the same time grasping the folds of her maphorion[hermantle] (65). As will become clear from my text, I do not share Ringbomsopinion.

20. John K. G. Shearman, Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance(Princeton, NJ, 1992), 3536.

21. Felix Thrlemann, Robert Campin: A Monographic Study with Critical Catalogue(Munich, 2002), 5876; Albert Chtelet, Robert Campin, le matre de Flmalle: Lafascination du quotidien(Antwerp, 1996), 29194, cat. no. 6.

22. Dirk De Vos, Rogier van der Weyden: Luvre complet(Antwerp, 1999), 19599.23. See Michael Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer

in the Social History of Pictorial Style(Oxford, 1974), 6770. Millard Meiss,FrenchPainting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries(New

York, 1974), 102224.24. For the ambivalence of gestures in a medieval Annunciation, see Jean Arrouye,

Polysmie gestuelle dans une Annonciationsiennoise du XIVe sicle, Le geste etles gestes au Moyen ge(Aix-en-Provence, 1998), 2732.

25. De Vos, Rogier van der Weyden, 27684.26. For the significance of this gesture as an act of authority and command comingfrom an authoritative person, see Franois Garnier, Le langage de limage auMoyen-ge: Signification et symbolique(Paris, 1982), 1:16768.

27. See Catheline Prier-DIeteren,Dieric Bouts: The Complete Works(Antwerp, 2006),16668; 238, cat. no. 3.

28. Garnier, Le langage de limage, 1:176, demonstrates that this gesture originallyvoiced the acceptance of the divine will. Since it is usually used by fifteenth-century artists, both in Italy and Flanders, in relation to the adoring Virgin of theNativity, I believe that here too it expresses an act of adoration and meditation.

29. Dirk De Vos, Hans Memling: Luvre complet(Antwerp, 1994), 9093.

30. Ibid., 12223.31. See Garnier, Le langage de limage, 1:184, 186.32. Among the first examples of a technique of invention through visualization

and composition of separate figures or scenes, see Leon Battista Alberti, OnPainting and On Sculpture: The Latin Texts of De Pictura and De Statua, 3.1024, ed.and trans. Cecil Grayson (London, 1972), 61; Lodovico Dolce,Dialogo della pit-tura(Venice, 1557), in Mark W. Roskill, ed.,Dolces Aretino and Venetian Art The-ory of the Cinquecento(Toronto, 2000), 11824.

33. F. W. H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca.14501700, vol. 12, Masters and Monogrammists of the 15th Century(Amsterdam,19492003), 143.

34. See Rona Goffen, Giovanni Bellini(New Haven, 1989), 14360.35. See Antonio Natali, ed., LAnnunciazione di Leonardo. La montagna sul mare

(Milan, 2000).36. Elisabeth Dhanens, Hubert et Jan van Eyck(Antwerp, 1980), 74 ff. The Munich

painting has been considered related to a print with a praying Virgin by theMaster E S (Ringbom, Icon to Narrative, 6465) or to a Byzantine panel in thecathedral of Fermo (Italy), showing the Virgin with her hands crossed over herbreast (Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era ofArt [Chicago, 1994], 34648). It is possible that Antonello knew the Fermopanel, but I believe that Belting, by comparing it with the Munich painting,overlooks a detail that makes a great difference: Antonellos Virgin turns her




30/30

gaze and responds to an off-scene figure, the angel, and is thus involved in anarrative context, which is absolutely not the case with the Byzantine Virgin.

37. See Aikema and Brown, Painting in Fifteenth-Century Venice, 182: A stronglight illuminates the Virgin from the left, signaling that this is the very moment

when the angel appears. The Virgin, her mouth half opened in fear or sur-

prise, turns around to confront the divine messenger, crossing her arms in agesture of modesty. As I have explained in the text, the Munich Annunciate isnot caught off-guard here, but she pledges her obedience by crossing thehands and proffering theEcce ancilla Domini.

38. The dimension and format of Antonellos panel undoubtedly indicate that itwas destined for private use. For bibliography, see John Oliver Hand, CatherineA. Metzger, and Ron Spronk, Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the NetherlandishDiptych(New Haven, CT, 2007), and more recently ric Palazzo, Lespace rituel etle sacr dans le christianisme: La liturgie de lautel portatif dans lAntiquit et auMoyen-ge(Turnhout, 2008).

39. See Garnier, Le langage de limage, 1:196; Moshe Barasch, Giotto and the Language

of Gesture(Cambridge, 1987), 11727.40. See Peter Humfrey, Cima da Conegliano (Cambridge, 1983), 13738, cat. no.118.

41. Bernard Perron, The First Transi-Sounds of Parallel Editing, in Richard Abeland Rick Altman, eds., The Sounds of Early Cinema(Bloomington, 2001), 7986.

42. I have already dealt with this topic, but in connection with a seventeenth-century painter, Philippe de Champaigne, in Lorenzo Pericolo, Philippehomme sage et vertueux: Essai sur lart et luvre de Philippe de Champaigne(Tournai,2002), esp. 15560.

43. For the interactions between prayer, liturgy, and image, see Laura Jacobus,Giottos Annunciation in the Arena Chapel, Padua, Art Bulletin 81, no. 1

(1999): 93107.44. Timothy J. Clark, letter to the author dated 8 January 2008.45. Hans Belting, The Invisible Icon and the Icon of the Invisible: Antonello and

New Paradigms in Renaissance Painting, in Lynn Catterson and Mark Zucker,eds., Watching Art: Writings in Honor of James BeckStudi di Storia dellarte in onoredi James Beck(Todi, 2006), 7383, esp. 7980.

46. I have already dealt with the relationship between the visible and the invisiblein images, but in connection with the figure of Christ; see Lorenzo Pericolo,Visualizing Appearance and Disappearance: On Caravaggios London Supper at

Emmaus, Art Bulletin89, no. 3 (2008): 51939.47. I do not intend here to create a new typology of religious images in the early

Renaissance, even though I believe a distinction in function must be moredefinitively traced. For a discussion of functions in icons, see Belting, Das Bildund sein Publikum im Mittelalter.

48. For Pliniuss and Quintilians description and interpretation of TimanthesSacrifice of Iphigeniaand its reception, see R. G. Austin, Quintilian on Paintingand Statuary, Classical Quarterly 38, no. 1/2 (1944): 1726; H. Fullenwider,The Sacrifice of Iphigenia in French and German Art Criticism: 17551757,Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte52 (1989): 53949.


Documents

The Invisible Presence: Cut-In, Close-Up, and Off-Scene in Antonello da Messina's Palermo Annunciate