Yep. Even Ghiberti bragged that he, and his fellow artists, had not only equalled the ancients but had surpassed them. So there was a sense of continuity in the Ren. but it was aimed at braking new ground. Leonardo said "He is a poor student who does not surpass his master". Art historian Hans Belting wrote a book titled The History of the Image Before Art by which he meant that the history of art presumes a sense of both continuity and progress based in precisely what you refer to as the self-conscious efforts of artists to do that. He argued that art before the earlier Ren. was not engaged in that process, being a recipe sort of decoration and symbolism for the major patron, the Church or State. I got to know Hans Belting when he was a visiting prof at Northwestern. Such a wonderful, brilliant man.
WC ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, May 10, 2012 8:32:31 AM Subject: Re: 'The whole history of modern art begins with this painting.' William wrote: > the P-R > believed that art up to the earlier work of Raphael was good and afterward > steeply declined. In choosing their name they proclaimed allegiance to art > before the High Renaissance (and the Ren. 'cult of genius'). Of course, this also makes your point that finding the beginning point of a period or cultural homogeneity is difficult. In one sense, the Renaissance is considered the first "modern" moment, beause the artists, writers, and philosophers of the time were self-consciously changing the prevailing mode by recovering the ancient classical style, rejecting the prevalent decorative International style of the late Medievalists. Then within a few decades, things shifted again. The Baroque exaggerated some of the theatrical effects of the Renaissance style, especially in architecture, and the Mannerists intentionally and self-consciously changed the formulations of the High Renaissance, etc. etc. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
