Journal of Modern Italian Studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
Giovanni Freppa, ‘Jack of all Trades’
Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 2019
Giovanni Freppa (1795-1870), a well-known antiquarian, was instrumental in propelling the Ginori maiolica firm to reinvent the technique of Renaissance lustreware. The so-called 'Freppa Scandal' resulted after he sold as authentic Renaissance pieces a number of plates made by Ginori. Freppa was also famous, or rather infamous, for his exploitation of the young sculptor Giovanni Bastianini, whose remarkable neo-Renaissance portrait busts were sometimes sold as authentic Renaissance works. The Louvre purchased for an enormous price a bust believed to be a Renaissance masterpiece; but it was actually executed by Bastianini in 1864 on commission from Freppa, resulting in 'the Benivieni Affair'. But this article is not primarily intended to expand on Freppa's transactions in the art world; rather, it highlights his activities in many other spheres, including a failed publishing project with Giacomo Leopardi, among other activities. Freppa was a more complex individual than indicated merely by the two above-mentioned scandals. RIASSUNTO Giovanni Freppa (1795-1870), un noto antiquario, fu determinante nello spingere la ditta maiolica Ginori a reinventare la tecnica del lustro rinascimentale. Il cosiddetto "Scandalo Freppa" ebbe avuto come risultato dopo aver venduto come autentici pezzi rinascimentali qualche piatto realizzato da Ginori. Il Freppa fu anche famoso, o piuttosto famigerato, per la sua sfruttamento del giovane scultore Giovanni Bastianini, i cui straordinari busti neorinascimentale furono venduti a volte come autentiche opere del Rinascimento. Il Louvre acquistò per un prezzo enorme un busto che si crederono fosse un capolavoro del Rinascimento; ma fu modellato da Bastianini nel 1864 su commissione di Freppa, con il risultato di "l'affare Benivieni". Ma questo articolo non è destinato principalmente ad espandersi sulle transazioni di Freppa nel mondo dell'arte; piuttosto, mette in evidenza le sue attività in molti altri ambiti, tra cui un progetto editoriale fallito con Giacomo Leopardi, tra le altre attività. La freppa era un individuo più complesso di quanto indicato semplicemente dai suddetto scandali.
Risky Business: Commissioning Portraits in Renaissance Italy
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019
Portraits served as a form of social media in the Renaissance. Prominent individuals commissioned portraits to convey their accomplishments and relationships, not merely their images. Political and church leaders, in particular, used the images to bolster their role, but these commissioned works entailed risks, importantly including risks to reputation. A portrait could be unflattering or unrecognizable. It could also be judged to be indecorous, especially if the portrait was perceived as an attempt to elevate an individual above his or her station. The artist-patron relationship was one between principal and agent. The time gap between commission and delivery brought risks. The work might be delayed, or simply not delivered. Both were significant risks with both Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Portraits by other artists might turn out to be of low quality or violate decorum. In either case, the reputation of both patron and artist would suffer. A number of salient examples of portraits gone wrong are analyzed in this essay. We mention two here. Elisabetta, mistress of Roberto Malatesta, the last of a long line of rulers of Rimini, became regent when Roberto died unexpectedly. She was guardian of their two minor sons and succeeded to power when Roberto's brother's plot to murder her and her elder son failed. Elisabetta then commissioned an altarpiece by Domenico Ghirlandaio for a famed local church. It was intended not only to show her devotion, but also, and strategically important, to publicly affirm her status as ruler, and her source of legitimacy as mother. She had herself depicted in the place of honor, in an outward gaze (unusual for a female patron) and nearly a head taller than her son. The deviations from the norm in the way she was portrayed, if widely accepted, would elevate Elisabetta, but such deviations elevated risks as well. Domenico died and his brother, hardly his equal in skill, took over. Elisabetta took another risk and demanded a price reduction, then accepted binding arbitration. The arbiter granted that quality had suffered and cut the price, but he also noted the departures from decorum in the composition. The reputation of the painting, artist, and presumably the patron, suffered. About twenty years later, when the Malatestas were driven from Rimini, the donors' portraits were painted out. Francesco del Giocondo commissioned a portrait of his wife, (Mona) Lisa, which has become the most famous portrait of all time. But the story does not end happily for Francesco. Instead of delivering the painting to the original patron, Leonardo kept it and later described it to Cardinal ‡ In Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, thematic issue, "Bad Reception: Negative Reactions to Italian Renaissance Art," ed. by Diletta Gamberini, Jonathan K. Nelson, and Alessandro Nova, forthcoming.
Renaissance Studies, 2006
The aim of this paper is to place the projected tomb of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon within a wider context of events that are specifically of a political and economic nature. The artists are at once pawns in the hands of diplomats and financiers motivated by their inner rationale, as well as actors in their own right, discovering in a somewhat tentative way that, though not entirely free from the system of patronage of either institutions or princely families, they could jostle for position on the international stage, relying almost entirely on their own enterprising skills. The episode of the tomb, far from being a footnote in the history of the competition between Michelangelo and Bandinelli, offers an unusual insight into the workings of Medici patronage at a very delicate time in the history of both Leo X and Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici. The favour accorded to Baccio Bandinelli precluded, during Leo's lifetime, the possibility that any other sculptor would be offered even a chance of being a candidate for this commission. The death of the pontiff left the Cardinal not only in a political quandary but also in dire financial straits. Yet the support and loyalty of the English monarch were crucial to Giulio de’ Medici's success in his own endeavours to ascend the papal throne and, perhaps more importantly, to preserve Medici control over Florence. The trusted members of the Medici entourage representing both Florence and the family's interests at the court of Henry VIII, prevented the tomb project from dying altogether. The involvement of Giovanni Cavalcanti and his business partners Pierfrancesco de’ Bardi and Zanobi Girolami, as well as that of Giovanni Gaddi, was financial since each partner bought stakes in the models prepared by a number of artists, but at the same time aesthetic judgement had to be exercised by one if not all the investors in selecting the authors of the models sent to London in 1521–1523. This opened the way for sculptors who had previously suffered from Bandinelli's overbearing dominance: namely Baccio da Montelupo, and Jacopo Sansovino.
Bad Reception: Negative Reactions to Italian Renaissance Art, ed. by Diletta Gamberini, Jonathan K. Nelson, and Alessandro Nova, special number of the Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz LXIII (2021), pp. 15-31, 2020
The successful fruits of Italian Renaissance patronage were often prominently displayed by the original owners, and written up favourably by their contemporaries and ours. By contrast, paintings and sculptures that displeased or, worse, disgraced their patrons, though occasionally mentioned in publications about the patrons or artists, tended to get lost in historical accounts. As a result, standard assessments convey an unrealistically favourable picture. To facilitate a more balanced understanding of the patronage process, this essay addresses the risks inherent in commissioned portraits made in Italy from the late fifteenth through the late sixteenth century, including paintings by Andrea Mantegna, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and Leonardo da Vinci. We focus on two broad categories of risks faced by patrons. First, portraits had the prime goal of presenting individuals in a manner both recognizable and favourable, but these two objectives often clashed. Second, though the commissioned works needed to convey an appropriate message, some were deemed to be confusing, irritating, or indecorous. Such failings often resulted from the selection, pose, placement, and/or attributes of the individuals portrayed. Patrons or owners who perceived failings in any of these subtle and subjective matters expressed disapproval by criticizing, rejecting, damaging, or even destroying a portrait. The potential for negative reactions was a deterrent that helped to promote the quality, timeliness, and appropriateness of commissioned art. Nevertheless, significant risks remained. Identifying these sources of risk enables us to better understand the strategies that patrons and artists employed to control them.
Renaissance Quarterly, 2002
Ficino And Savonarola Two Faces of the Florence Renaissance
Roczniki Humanistyczne, 2019
At the end of the 15 th century, Renaissance Florence experiences an extraordinary period of fascination with the person and teachings of Girolamo Savonarola. The golden Medici century was followed by the Bruciamenti delle vanità, during which many objects of wealth, musical instruments and priceless works of art were committed to the flames. A year later, Savonarola himself, who inspired those "bonfires of vanities," died at the stake in Piazza della Signoria. 1 The reaction to the secularization of the Medici times was not based on simple negation. Savonarola operated in an environment permeated by refined Renaissance culture, with its love of antiquity and philosophy, during the flourishing period of the Platonic Academy. The analysis of the relationship between the main intellectual and spiritual authority of the Platonic Academy, Marsilio Ficino and Savonarola, is possible by comparing some aspects of the activities of each antagonist and a description of the growth of their conflict, based on selected sources, and studies of the subject. 2 BEATA GAWROŃSKA-ORAMUS, M.A.-doctoral procedure open at the Institute of Arts of the