This article concerns some works by Piero della Francesca who was born in (then) Borgo San Sepolcro (now simply Sansepolcro) in central Italy, around 1412; he died there in 1492. He is famous not only for his exquisite paintings but also as a theorist of mathematical perspective on which he wrote two of his three books. This blog already contains several posts about Piero della Francesca which examine other works of his.
The Flagellation by Piero della Francesca, tempera and oil on wood, 58.3 x 81.5cm
Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino (Photo: the author)
The picture is kept behind glass in its own glass or perspex box; it is noticeably convex (see the photo below) causing some vertical straight lines to appear curved and is quite difficult to photograph. Note how the two forward columns, the pavement between them and their architrave stand out, sunlit, against the interior beyond.
The Flagellation, a small painting on wood kept at Urbino, is one of Piero della Francesca's most renown and most enigmatic works. Its small size belies its art-historical impact, a fact attested by the sheer number of critical attempts to decipher its meaning, to unravel the enigma; to date, an unsuccessful endeavour. It is obvious however, that that enigmatic quality is so much part-and-parcel of the painting's essence that, were it in fact ever to be wholly 'deconstructed', the image would be at risk of losing a good part of what it actually is. This fact is interesting in that it points up a difference between images made-up of 'realistic' representation - such as this one - and those which imitate nature, or physical reality, for its own sake. Often, Renaissance painting is seen as comprehensible because it 'looks like' reality; the best pictures do indeed look like the physical world around us but they contain something else. In other words, their 'realism' is deceptive: it is merely a vehicle of transmutation, a means by which something ineffable may be conveyed - even at the risk of misinterpretation. In a sense, the attempt by art historians to interpret the occult significance of such images as the Flagellation is a type of game, a game in which people willingly participate, but one which no-one really wants to win! The enigmas in any case are two: why is the picture composed in the way it is, especially with the actual flagellation set in the distance; and who are those three figures in the right foreground? To what do they refer? The traditional title of this small painting, The Flagellation, is simply an art historical convention: in fact, along with other things we don't know about this picture, we don't know what the original title was nor, indeed, if it even had one.
Much is made of Piero della Francesca's use of perspective and rightly so since he was, and is still, a recognised master of its theory; not only did he write theoretical treatises on the subject, but he illustrated those books with his own detailed drawings. And he also 'illustrated' them, we might say, in his painted work, perhaps most notably in the Flagellation but also in the Montefeltro Altarpiece in Milan and the top part of the Sant'Antonio Altarpiece in Perugia, as well as in three frescos at Arezzo. His sublime Resurrection in Sansepolcro is constantly referred to as well in this regard, due to its supposed use of two independent perspectives or viewpoints: one for the lower part of the image, where the sleeping guards lie, and the other for the person of the Resurrected Christ.
The viewpoint, or the position from which the imagined viewer witnesses the depicted scene, is of extreme importance in the Flagellation. Analysis of the perspective lines in the left-hand side of this image easily reveals the vanishing point and therefore the hypothetical position (and eye-height) of the imagined witness of the event. This vanishing point is quite close to the central columns separating the left and right parts of the entire image but at a low level, allowing the viewer to see very clearly the ceiling and the underside of its huge architraves. What is not so obvious however is that once we shift our gaze from inside the main buildings to the outside, on the right, although the perspective of those background buildings is in keeping with that on the left side - that is, they recede to the same vanishing point - we see that (again) the perspective has changed when we focus on the three unknown and enigmatic figures in the foreground. When looking at them we see them as though we were of the same height as they, at their eye-level! We are no longer looking up but rather directly ahead! This is therefore apparently the same 'device' as that used in the Resurrection, where a change of viewpoint from one of looking straight ahead (at the guards and the top of the tomb) to one of looking up (at Christ) occurs; in fact though, the figure of the Resurrected Christ is represented as though we were on His level despite the top of the tomb suggesting that that is where our eye-level is (we can't see into it and we are not looking up at it). When viewing the fresco in the Museo Civico at Sansepolcro, we are in fact looking up at the entire painted image, which of course means that the figure of Christ is physically above our eye-level. However, the psychological effect is that we are looking straight at His face or, better, that He is staring directly at us. But I digress!
A closer view of the Flagellation: not a good photo but the difference in lighting between interior and exterior space is clear. The vanishing point for the perspective construction is in the dark wall to the right of the right-hand flagellant's right knee. This applies as well for the buildings on the right side of the image. (Photo: the author)
A very interesting fact within the left side of the image of the Flagellation is that, while the biblical event is taking place within a sort of portico or loggia, and therefore not in direct sunlight, the 'framing' architrave and huge columns nearest us, and the white marble floor linking them, actually form a kind of frame enclosing the entire episode: this because all four elements are sunlit, contrasting with the shadowed area further in. In front of those elements is an open space, that is, an 'outdoor' area in which, coincidentally, are situated the three personages, even if they are somewhat to the right. It occurs to me that it is as though, as a result of this 'framing', the three large figures are related to a painting, that is to say, a painting within a painting! This however, still does not identify who exactly they are, a moot point if ever there were one! Also, I did not say that they were 'discussing' a painting because, as occurs in most of Piero della Francesca's pictures, the actors are not represented as speaking even if one of them, the Byzantine figure on the left, is gesturing with his left hand; incidentally, exactly the same gesture as that made by the turbaned figure with his back to us, on the left side.
Be that as it may, it is a fact of the way we see that our eyes are constantly moving, constantly searching for or reacting to stimulus; in the case of the Flagellation and, for that matter, the Resurrection, the apparent 'contradiction' in the use of two viewpoints within the one image could actually be - or actually is - a means of accommodating this optical fact. To see Christ being whipped we must look directly at Him but to see the ceiling of that portico, we must shift our gaze from Him and look up; what a perspective representation does is combine numerous points of focus into the one seemingly coherent whole; it relies on our knowledge of our world, not on the strict reality of vision. By contrast, and speaking very generally, when our distant ancestors painted the figure of an animal or a hunter on a cave wall, they represented what could be taken-in in a single direct look; it is an interesting fact that it apparently never occurred to them to include trees, lakes, mountains and so on, as a 'setting': what they drew on the walls and rock faces - if not an abstract symbol - was what could be apprehended in reality while looking at one object, or one group of objects - and that normally from a distance.
Here we might mention that many attempts have been made to define the influences on Piero which led to his extraordinary composition, for it is, apart from the identification of the three figures in the right foreground, the composition itself which is of great interest to art historians. This is because generally and in Renaissance art in particular, in religious (and other) imagery, the subject or theme of the image is placed squarely in the centre, not to say in the foreground. Piero's placing of the putative subject, that is, the flagellation of Christ, off-centre somewhere in the background, therefore defies this long tradition. In fact though, the general layout of the composition does have precedents even if the subject in those remains in the foreground. Let's have a look at one which I think could have had some influence (I am unaware if others have remarked on this or not, although I imagine so): it is a large fresco at Castiglione d'Olona painted by Masolino (1383-1447) - one-time painting companion to Masaccio - showing the Banquet of Herod (at which Herod and others were presented with the severed head of John the Baptist).
The Banquet of Herod by Masolino da Panicale, fresco, 380 x 473cm Baptistry, Castiglione d'Olona (Photo: Public Domain through Wikimedia Commons)
As we can see on the left, Masolino has constructed a very large and elegant, two-storey building which recedes abruptly into the fictive space (as does Piero's); on this side, in the elegant ground-level loggia 1, Herod appears to be discussing something with his courtiers and, I assume, Salome (the young blonde woman near the column), while on the right, in another elegant portico (receding sharply and deeply into the fictive space), the just-severed head is presented to Salome's mother Herodias, the person who instigated the whole affair. Four things strike me about this image in relation to Piero della Francesca's Flagellation: first, at circa 1435 it pre-dates his picture; second, the setting of at least one part of the story (on the left) in an open but covered area, with columns; third, the deep recession of the building on the right and its visual linking with the other, in the background; and fourth, the placement of figures outside Herod's palace. Whether or not it represents a palace, a loggia or some other structure is not important; the salient point is that the general structure could have influenced him ... had he seen it: something we don't know! Perhaps I should say that when historians speak about possible influences or sources for a particular artist's work, they do not always mean to imply that the later artist has taken over someone else's ideas holus-bolus, but merely that some elements - sometimes more, sometimes less - have been adopted, and usually adapted, by the later artist.
The Queen of Sheba paying Homage to the Wood of the True Cross (left) and The Meeting of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon (right), by Piero della Francesca, fresco, 1450s but date much disputed.
San Francesco, Arezzo (Photo: Public Domain through Wikimedia Commons)
But three other precedents can be found in the work of Piero himself, specifically the scenes concerning the Queen of Sheba, the Verification of the True Cross and the Annunciation, all parts of the fresco cycle (1452 - 55, or - 64?) of the Legend of the True Cross, at Arezzo. The first of these scenes (a pair) represents the queen paying homage to the wood of the Cross and the second, her subsequent meeting with King Solomon. Here also there are two distinct but related events separated by a deeply receding line of columns; the first scene is set outdoors while the second takes place inside a palace, or perhaps it is again a type of loggia. If it is actually inside the palace, we may note that 'removing' a wall so that viewers from the outside could see what was happening was not beyond Piero either (see Note 1)! By his time of course, artists were already placing the presumed viewer somewhere within the staged setting for indoor narratives, as opposed to placing him or her outside, looking in. On the other hand, his - to my mind - later Flagellation is a much-refined and subtler solution to the problem: placing the event in a semi-enclosed but logical space, a loggia for example, with a further true interior implied by the rear doors and the visible stairway beyond one of them. The exterior pavement in front of the loggia merely serves to strengthen the illusion that we are looking from the outside into a kind of porch beyond which is a rationally implied interior space - not visible to us except for the distant staircase.
Again, in the Queen of Sheba episode on the right, as in the left of the Flagellation, we are observing the scene from a low viewpoint, or, at least, we observe the building from a low viewpoint; the figures however, we seem to be on the same level with, as we are with the main figures in the left-hand scene - to which figures by the way, we would seem to be actually a little closer: here their feet are not visible whereas, on the right, we can see the feet quite clearly! On the left, we are quite near but, on the right, our viewpoint is somewhat further back. It might be said that generally in Piero's paintings, a low viewpoint pertains for the architecture where it occurs as a major compositional element 2, and human figures are normally represented at mutual eye-level, that is, our viewpoint is at the same height as the actors in the relevant scenes. In the case of the Flagellation - where incidentally, it might be argued that architecture is the de-facto main theme of the image (or at least, perspective drawing is) - this change of viewpoint is somewhat disconcerting. If we focus on the three outside figures and register the actually quite distant buildings behind them as concordant with them, and then quickly shift our focus to the left interior, the transition is abrupt and jolting; this is especially clear if we repeat the exercise with the Queen of Sheba frescos, where there is no major change of scale of the principal actors in the two scenes.
Also at Arezzo, the Verification of the True Cross scene is of particular interest in relation to our present topic. This image with its numerous foreground figures features a large temple-like structure immediately behind them; to the right is another urban street (in front of which are three figures), such as we see on the right in the Flagellation. These buildings are typical of what we can still see today in medieval and Renaissance cities such as Florence, Siena, Pisa and so on. Behind these buildings in turn are situated three towers, one of which is a bell-tower, as well as a cupola or dome, with its lantern on top. Again, our viewpoint is, as far as the buildings are concerned, from below and we seem to be placed more or less immediately in front of the temple; although Piero has suggested that we are ever so slightly to the left of it - judging from the inclusion of a deeply receding roof-line on that side - to all intents and purposes, given that he has shown the facade face-on, we must be in front of it. In fact, the left edge of that structure marks the division between this scene and the preceding one in the same manner that this occurs in the Queen of Sheba episodes, and in the Flagellation, that is, with architecture. As far as the temple facade is concerned, the pediment and massive architraves are clearly seen from below, however its three arches, visually at the height of the foreground actors, are shown as though seen from directly in front, with little underside; this would seem to suggest that Piero was accommodating, as mentioned already, the movement of the eye: directly ahead with no distortion and, as the gaze moves higher, noticeable change in the pediment and so on. Of interest is that the cross being used by the foreground actors shares its vanishing point with that of the temple, however the receding lines of the buildings on the right seem to go to a similar low point but situated further to the left, that is, in the preceding scene! 3
Finally, as far as the frescos at Arezzo are concerned, there is the Annunciation; once again, we find the same elements as in the images already discussed. A loggia with columns separating an exterior section - where the angel is - and an 'interior' section - where the Virgin is; the angel being represented in profile suggests that we are on the same viewpoint level as he is, but, again, we are definitely looking up at the building, a view this time accentuated by its being a two-storey structure and the arch of the window. Indeed, in this painting, we can see the pavement (looking down), the two principal actors (looking directly ahead) and the underside of the loggia's architraves and of the window above (looking up). These examples from Arezzo would seem to support the idea expressed earlier, that perhaps Piero was attempting to encompass the whole field of our vision, very specifically indicating our position as viewers and then allowing our eyes to survey the entire scene as though it were a 'real' one. Naturally, artists had been attempting this long before Piero della Francesca appeared but perhaps none had managed to do it so convincingly that, essentially, we have no question about what is represented, at least as far as the physical ambience is concerned. In addition, he constantly provides us with spatial dichotomies: inside versus outside, our space versus the picture's space, directly in front versus looking up; and often, the temporal and the divine.
Where does all this leave us then when studying these works by this great master? It does seem that his intellectual interest in accurate mathematical measuring - and rendering - of spaces and objects was a preoccupation which developed into a major component of his painting. As I have remarked elsewhere, the top portion of the Montefeltro (or Brera) Altarpiece could easily exist as a complete work on its own, that is, without the religious imagery of the lower portion; or simply have the entire painting as architecture and nothing else. Likewise, the Flagellation could quite happily satisfy us - speaking for myself of course - without any of its human (or divine) figures; admittedly, certain very subtle elements, such as the alternative light source around and above the figure of Christ, would lose their significance, but we would still have - for the 15th century and beyond - an extraordinary and extremely refined statement of the still-new intellectual tool of perspective.
This conception of the 'de-populated' architecture in Renaissance pictures is my own but the idea itself of architecture sans figures is not new, although still very unusual 4. Also in Urbino is the wonderful Ideal City, one of three such images, the authors of which are matters of dispute. The example in Urbino has been attributed to Piero, amongst others; to my mind, there may be an argument for considering Leon Battista Alberti as its author; it would seem to be in some ways a pictorial rendering of both his De re aedificatoria and his perspective theory as set out in Della pittura; however, some historians have pointed out that certain architectural elements in this large picture post-date his death in 1472, so possibly not. The Ideal City, a beautiful imagined Renaissance city, although it has several potted plants displayed in windows and so on, and at least two pigeons, contains no human life, no human figure; it is essentially an image of an architect's dream, his or her creation untroubled, undisturbed by human beings! Of course, the very idea, that of a city, implies the presence of human beings, not only to occupy it, but initially to build it. However, for the purist architect one imagines, the introduction of human activity into his or her creation, particularly such an ideal one, heralds the beginning of its decline: no longer an ideal in its pristine state as an idea in the mind - not to say in this connection, its neo-Platonic Ideal state!
Ideal City, author unknown, tempera and oil on wood, 67.5 x 239 cm approx., date unknown (c.1475?)
Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino (Photo: the author)
Again, behind glass or perspex and difficult to photograph: the real thing is light and airy and the dark areas at the top and sides are not part of the painting. Close to, it is possible to discern 'pentimenti' - that is, changes made to the design during the course of its execution - under the arches on the extreme right for instance.
A close-up detail of the portico on the extreme lower right of the Ideal City: note the pot-plant in the upper window and the doves on the ledge; but also, looking closely, the incised curves of alternative arches are still visible under the first arch. (Photo, somewhat distorted: the author)
A side view of the panel of the Flagellation: note the marked convexity of the wood. The lighter parts are examples of restoration work. (Photo: the author)
1 Masolino's loggia could in fact be a left-over from medieval convention (see Giotto for instance) where, even though an event took place indoors, inconvenient walls were removed to that the outside viewer (us) could see what was going on within.
2 Here I am thinking of the Flagellation (Urbino), the Montefeltro Altarpiece (Brera, Milan), the top portion of the Sant'Antonio Altarpiece (Perugia) and the Annunciation, Queen of Sheba and Verification of the True Cross frescos in the Legend of the True Cross cycle at Arezzo. In other works, architecture provides a setting but is not a sort of, so to speak, independent actor: The Madonna of Senigallia (Urbino), Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta before Saint Sigismondo (Rimini), Mary Magdalen (Arezzo), the very late Nativity (London) and the Madonna and Child with Angels (Williamstown, USA). This point of view is of course open to debate since there is architecture (buildings) in all of these last-named pictures; but, in these, architecture is a backdrop and not really an enclosing space, with however, some flexibility as far as the Senigallia Madonna is concerned.
3 Naturally, no discussion of this double panel can omit mention of the very famous view of Arezzo in the top left corner of the left side. Although obviously filled with buildings, it is a type of panoramic view and not a study of architecture per se. It is nevertheless a remarkable 'portrait' of that city, the very city in which these frescos exist!
4 See however the excellent drawings and models, pp 104-7, in the catalogue Piero della Francesca, La seduzione della prospettiva, published by Marsilio in 2018 on the occasion of the exhibition of the same name in Sansepolcro.
No comments:
Post a Comment