Brunelleschi is to blame for the birth of technical images
There is a very specific point in western culture where the control over images was deeply transformed from free abstraction (a more semantic construction of imagery) to an objectivity-based, or better, mathematically biased depiction of concepts.
Semiotically, the depiction of anything, however technical and accurate, is faded to be, ultimately, a conceptual depiction, for it will always be a subjective capture conveyed or rendered on canvas. The advent of photography is comparatively new, as long as human history is concerned, meaning that for the most part of history, images were nothing but mystical conveyances, mediated by ‘illuminated’ beings, capable of such realization. Unsurprisingly, within the Christianized Roman world, artistic manifestations such as painting and sculpture were tightly connected to an overall sense of righteousness and divine duty. Illuminations — adornments on sacred manuscripts for example — were, according to Arnold Hauser, commissioned by priests with a twofold function: to serve as an expensive reminding of highness and refinement (these manuscripts were only commercially accessible to royals), along with its more commonly known religious functions, in terms of adhering truth and value to the manuscript as a document. But if we carefully observe these works from their aesthetic standpoint, it becomes instantaneously evident that, although they had a practical (and political) function to solve — that of adherence of value and authenticity — they were composed of images construed with profound disregard to practical rules of depiction of reality, meaning; their officiality stood over mystical and imaginary graphical elaborations, in disregard of strict rules, so that the composition, positions, dimensions, served the sole purpose of the doctrination.
Notwithstanding both stylistic variations that were tied to financial and pragmatic reasons, (being those simple depictions or luxurious elaborations) the content depicted is what is at stake here, and whatever artistic method utilized, we can still find traces of imaginative manifestations, not bound to constraints of immediate physical reality, thus, the imagery of illuminations were not meant to be practical metaphors.
This is not to say that there was no practicality on the use of images, neither to regard the matter in terms of ‘stages’ of complexity, once these imagetic artworks had clear functions to serve and strict technical rules to follow; it only means to consider that none of these rules were bound to a sense of necessity of a technical accuracy of depiction of physical visual reality.
The closer we might perhaps find to what would have been a work of illustration that ventured to be purely instructional, in terms of rigidity of depiction, is the Utrecht — Psalter manuscript, which finds its stylistic source in Christian-Oriental models, with 166 incredibly technically accurate illustrations. Its importance is such, as we read that “The psalter spent the period between about 1000 to 1640 in England, where it had a profound influence on Anglo-Saxon art, giving rise to what is known as the “Utrecht style”. In the words of Arnold Hauser
What is remarkable is not that this improvising method of representation was practised at the same time as the cool, imposing court style, but that, qualitatively, it was so much more impressive than the court art with its much more lavish technique, resources and format. (HAUSER Arnold — 1 Social History of Art, From Prehistoric Times to the Middle Ages, 1999, 74)
One chronological step ahead, and we find the vast abundance of paintings and other artworks throughout early medieval age, all the way up to early Renaissance, which configures a period of time where pictorial arts were effectively under the sovereignty of Church’s patronage. As the description presumes, this means that the artistic craft was made under close inspection, as artists were commissioned to elaborate readings of biblical passages, in scenes that depicted the description, but within a strict semiotic codification. It is important, though, to highlight that we cannot confuse the use of visual metaphors within these hagiographies as immature artistic style, but the opposite, to the extent that we have well documented registers of commissions, they were intentional and corresponded accordingly to rigid moral concepts.
The artistic grandeur of Renaissance revolved concepts of a certain notion of bourgeois “realism”, so we could say that “the real change brought about by the Renaissance is that metaphysical symbolism loses its strength and the artist’s aim is limited more and more definitely and consciously to the representation of the empirical world” (Hauser, 1990, 2).
The human eye turned to mundane elements, and claimed for enhanced artistic features capable of dealing with complexities specific to the natural physical dimension. Little by little, there was a profusion of artistic production that distanced themselves from the flattened surfaces of Byzantine painting, as well as slowly disappearing symbolic metaphorical representations of angels and unearthly manifestations; something happens to the function of images in society. The explicit influence of diverse techniques soon gained space within artistic manifestations, such as paintings, and the status of the images depicted rapidly shifted with new and more imposing technological expectations.
In the center of the spot we find Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446), a goldsmith and clockmaker who permanently altered the place role of images in society. But how so?
Brunelleschi is a well known architect and sculptor, holding the titles of numerous art pieces and landmarks, most notably, the dome of the Cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, which, as the legend goes, was started without the constructors knowing exactly how to finish the roof. It was originally expected to be an ongoing process, as the years would pass and new technologies would arrive, allowing the construction of the roof with use of some new technology, but it was later understood that it was not a simple task. Brunelleschi was invited to provide some ideas for the project, and thus the biggest masonry dome of the world, standing up to nowadays, was conceived; a miraculous piece of engineering, architecture and art.
But apart from his architectural accomplishments, Brunelleschi was plentiful with studies on innovations in both artistic areas, graphical and architectural. The first, the purely graphical, aesthetical aspect of these studies, comprise a great deal of studies on perspective, firstly oriented to provide a better and more accurate representation of architectural plannings, but that were crucial principles to be followed by the posterior painters.
The value of architectural representations on Christian frescoes is widely recognized, and the importance of the depiction of architecture goes along with a vast range of significations. Although perspective was already in use within certain circles, and it served well for a century before Brunelleschi, however, it was up to him to demonstrate that the use of technical laws would allow for a realistic depiction of volumetric structures in a two-dimensional canvas.
The previous use of similar techniques presented harsh deviations of angles and creative elaborations, considered acceptable given the metaphysical preponderance of the artwork, that is, the meaning of the painting is more important than the technical accuracy of its representation; up to one point in time.
The newly introduced techniques of Brunelleschi’s, allowing the creation of much more life-like images, stirred the bases of a classical notion of aesthetics, and his illusions of depth were, if not an amusement, a new technical standpoint. Brunelleschi is considered to be the father of the techniques of perspective, as well as the father of the optical illusion, as his Trompe-l’œil would simulate depth on a flat surface in such a way as to make it become a window to another point in history.
In this period, we find a series of paintings placing architectural structures on the upper half of the canvas, showing the preponderance of the newly developed techniques, highlighting the mathesis, the logic, the engineering as the highest manifestation of human genius.
Images thus, were gradually oriented towards a technical obligation of accurately representing dimensions of reality, or better yet, holding the burden of practical reality. Things and people ceased to have their dimensions organized by means of religious hierarchy, sizes and proportions started to correspond and respect a mathematical hierarchy instead. It is important to notice that paintings were commissioned artworks, meaning that they were — at least to a certain extent — exchanged goods and products, contrary to the naive conception of ‘free depiction of ideas, concepts, sentiments, with no ties to reality’ whatsoever. They were at all times, technical enterprises, however, the imposition of a standard representation of visual reality was not a thing, up to the first half of 15th century, with the studies of Brunelleschi.
This is due to the fact that there was the struggle to tell a story — mostly sacred stories — representing figures with different sizes in order to establish a hierarchy, trying to comprise a sense of space and disposition of elements that would only serve as means to its ends, namely, telling a sacred passage. These hierarchizations most often disregarded rules of dimensions and we end up with depictions such as the Ognissanti Madonna of Giotto, dated from 1306.
“But the fact that artists were masters of several different techniques, that Giotto, Orcagna, Brunelleschi, Benedetto da Maj ano, Leonardo da Vinci, were architects, sculptors and painters, Pisanello, Antonio Pollajuolo, Verrocchio, sculptors, painters, goldsmiths and medallists, that, in spite of advancing specialization, Raphael was still both a painter and an architect, and Michelangelo a sculptor, painter and architect at the same time, is connected more with the craft-like character of the visual arts than with the Renaissance ideal of versatility.” (Hauser, ibid.)
After the 15th century, every painting relates to these influences in one way or another, either by incorporating it, or by deliberately opposing it, in a reactive religious movement, but the later proves a trend that does not stand long.
Perhaps, as Hauser points out, the slow victory of humanism over metaphysical considerations made for the disregard of specific crafts, and craved for the “versatility of talent” and “especially the union of art and science in one person”, which ultimately changed the way the artistic manifestations were meant to be understood; namely, an aesthetic proof of logic.
