Meanings of Baroque
Meanings of Baroque
.
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].
Wiley and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
http://www.jstor.org
C. HEYL
BERNARD
of
Meanings
I
PERUSALS
of recent
literature
on
the Ba-
of art at Wellesley
Col-
Baroque
BERNARD
276
C. HEYL
Meanings of Baroque
Raphael's School of Athens-a monument
that is for most art historians a paradigm
of High Renaissance style-is included by
Sypher among the exceptional examples of
Renaissance style because the great vaults in
the painting "do not, in a sense, define
architectural space in firm ratios but give it
an acoustical quality, a momentum that
seems to vibrate off into free energy." And
Pollaiuolo's engraving, The Battle of the
Nudes, we are told, "already has the tortured energy of mannerist line." These and
other examples will bewilder anyone who
has a broad, flexible conception of Renaissance style, who is impressed by its stylistic
diversity as well as by its common stylistic
traits. Sypher, I believe, misrepresents the
complexity of the period in order to emphasize a unified concept of style. But the
unity claimed for the style is contradicted
by the evidence. Indeed, he refutes his convictions by his own words: "The renaissance
humanists brought their world into a single
focus, though it is hard to say whether the
focus was scientific, platonic, or Christian."
Challenges to this postulate of the stylistic unity of artistic periods have of course
been made by scholars who find it illusory.
As Walter Friedlaender has said: "In spite
of the short span of barely twenty years in
which it ran its course, the particularly
intensive epoch of the High Renaissance
had no unified character. The very fact
that Michelangelo's art cannot possibly be
counted in with the "classic" art of Leonardo, Raphael, Fra Bartolommeo, and
Andrea del Sarto destroys any unity."5 Some
styles, to be sure, are more organic and
homogeneous than others. In "archaic" periods, for example, when artists do not have
a choice of styles, the total artistic output
has more unity. But in the case of the "developed" periods that are here discussed we
must reject, as an illusion, the concept of a
pervasive or unified period style.
Three alternative approaches to the problem of finding a satisfactory meaning for
"Baroque style" may be mentioned. Two of
these show a sharp reaction against the view
challenged in the foregoing pages. Recognizing the insurmountable difficulties inherent
in the concept of a unified period style,
some writers seem to advocate-or at least
277
to yearn for-the wholesale elimination of
such large stylistic concepts as Renaissance
and Baroque, classic and romantic. Instead
of attempting to find satisfactory referents
for these terms, one should analyze only
specific trends and characterize, say, decades
rather than centuries. Let us settle the matter by ceasing to use words which, because
they mean so many different things to different people, have, in fact, come to mean
nothing. While this radical remedy to our
problem is tempting in that it avoids the
pitfalls of the periodizers, it is too drastic to
be adopted. "Big" words-words which normally have a wide and varied significancecannot be abolished with impunity. They
retain a breadth of meaning, however vague
and complex, which one is reluctant to lose.
As teachers and as ordinary mortals, we need
them.
The other approach which reacts against
the concept of a homogeneous style restricts
the meaning of "Baroque" to a single feature or to a specific time span. W. Fleming,
for example, confines the meaning of "Baroque" largely to movement.6 Others would
restrict its meaning to "heroic sweep," "opulence," "magnificence," "pomp," "extravagance," and the like.7 Walter Friedlaender
believes it would be best if such terms as
Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque were used
only "when they meant something very
definite and circumscribed... a period
should always be restricted to one or two
generations, and not used to include completely different trends under a common
denominator like 'The Art of the Baroque.' "8 Now these and other attempts to
restrict the meaning of "Baroque" have the
same sorts of appeal as has the suggestion,
mentioned above, to abolish the term: they
avoid the inconsistencies of the unified
approaches; and they seem to clarify and
simplify the whole problem by eliminating
much of its complexity. Yet all such solutions, I maintain, are both untenable and
undesirable. They are untenable because
critics and scholars will not be persuaded
to agree about a preferred meaning. Proposals to restrict the sense to a relatively
simple and clearly defined meaning offer an
irresistible starting-point for further controversy. They are undesirable because they
BERNARD
278
C. HEYL
the bad artists and currents of the seventeenth century, he makes the distinction between "barocco" and "barocchismo," between "Seicento" and "Seicentismo."
This disagreement between Delogu and
Grassi inevitably leads to confusion. Is it
not apparent that the basic cause of this
confusion is the misguided application of
value judgments to the concept of Baroque
style? Comparable judgments unfortunately
occur in critical writings of various kinds.
Important terms which normally have no
implications of value are given favorable or
hostile connotations. As two literary critics
have recently pointed out: "Classical means
either artistically perfect or coldy artificial;
romantic means either warmly and truly expressive or sentimental and uncontrolled.""
Thus, "I call the classic healthy, the romantic sickly,"12 asserted Goethe; and T.
S. Eliot writes of "the classicist, or adult
mind." Such evaluative uses, though often
effective as polemical devices, introduce
highly subjective attitudes into critical
problems. By so doing, they make clear
and intelligible solutions to the problems
impossible.13
Meanings
279
of Baroque
280
BERNARD
C. HEYL
281
Meanings of Baroque
Verbal differences occur conspicuously
when writers on the Baroque consider its relation with classicism.21Several writers hold
that classicism is a style, contemporary with,
but distinct from, the Baroque. Meyer Shapiro states, for example, that "contemporary with the Baroque of the seventeenth
century is a classic style which in the late
eighteenth century replaces the Baroque."22
And T. H. Fokker, in his book, Roman Baroqute Art, also separates classicism from
Baroque style, applying the term "classicism," tout simple, to Poussin. Now of course
one cannot compel verbal usage; but if one
accepts the concept of Baroque, as here proposed, as a broad and varied style, the use of
"classicism" to connote a separate and important stylistic trend is misleading. Far
more satisfacory is Denis Mahon's somewhat
more cumbersome expression "baroque classicism" or, as I prefer, "classic-baroque."Obviously this term does not describe a style
precisely, but is merely a short-hand way of
suggesting a group of dominant traits. The
concept of Classic-Baroque will include the
Roman style of Annibale Carracci and of
Poussin and will, in a very general way,
designate a style that combines elements
that are unquestionably Baroque-i.e., that
are characteristic only of seventeenth-century art-with such "classical" elements as
clarity, restraint, and emphatic orderliness.
By this usage of "classic-baroque" one may
avoid the dilemma of those critics who, like
Otto Grautoff,23 radically and arbitrarily
shift their critical position, when analyzing
French painting of the seventeenth century,
from a style concept to a time concept.
The fact that Annibale's painting is characterized as both Early-Baroque and ClassicBaroque should not create ambiguity. The
application of the two qualifying terms
"early" and "classic" to his art adds to the
precision of the description. Indeed, as
Mahon has argued, still greater precision
will designate his Bolognese phase as EarlyBaroque, his Roman phase as Classic-Baroque and Early-Baroque. In an analogous
way, Caravaggio's art may be considered
not only Early-Baroque but Realistic-Baroque or Naturalistic-Baroque, the referents
indicating, in a very general way, a style
that combines a concern for "realism" of
content and of handling with characteristics that are unmistakably those of the
seventeenth century. This classification is
applicable as well to much Spanish and
Dutch painting of the century, to the Le
Nain brother, and even faute de mieux to
Georges de la Tour. One may urge, to be
sure, that, because of stylistic features exceptional in the period (the sharp edges, the
sculpturesque and abstract character of his
forms, for example), de la Tour should not
be included within the Baroque. But to
eliminate an important artist of the period
from the broad meaning of Baroque at once
weakens the basic idea of the preferred
connotation of "Baroque." Rather than
make such an exception, we should try to
define the various stylistic trends of the
century by coining, if necessary, new qualifying epithets, and thus refining our terminology so that it more accurately indicates
the stylistic characteristics in question. By
doing this, we should learn to think of different kinds of Baroque art; that is to say,
we should learn to use the word "Baroque"
in the plural.
of verbal differences, and
about
the use of words cannot,
agreement
however, resolve many of the contradictions
found in analyses of Baroque style. We
often face real, not semantic, disagreements.
Consider, as examples, three opinions of
Sypher which make an illuminating contrast
with different views, previously expressed by
other critics.
First: Sypher's contention that Baroque
art is basically tactile is opposed to Wolfflin's well-known verdict. Sypher remarks:
"Much baroque painting, and almost all
baroque architecture and sculpture, are
vigorously 'haptic,' giving us a maximum
tactile value and being 'felt' in the viscera
and the finger-ends as well as on the retina."24 W6lffiin, to the contrary, contends
that in seventeenth-century painting "tactile
sensations vanish" and that "the tactile
picture has become the visual picture-the
most decisive revolution which art history
knows."25 In his discussion of Bernini's
sculpture, he stresses the absence in the
forms of "immediate tangibility."
In the second place, Sypher, in the section
CLARIFICATION
282
BERNARD
C. HEYL
283
AMeanings of Baroque
monuments, or emphasize different qualities of the same monument, to support their
claim.
In his discussion of Academic and Baroque art, Sypher selects the facade of Sant'
Agnese to point up the existence of "'tectonic' structures, having a mighty decorum."''2 He has deliberately chosen an exarchitecture
ample of Italian Baroque
which is notably "systematic," balanced, and
symmetrical. The central dome and the
endl towers produce an effect of order and
of regularity which Sypher justifiably describes as "tectonic." W6lfflin, discussing different aspects of the same monument, asserts that "the inexhaustibility
of the
possible pictures" and the "variation in the
mode of appearance" which this facade
presents, produce an effect which is "paint3
erly."
By selecting, moreover, such examples of Roman Baroque architecture as
S. Andrea della Valle and the Trevi Fountain for analysis, he discusses those monuments that best illustrate the characteristics
which for him comprise the essence of Baroque art: namely, "painterliness," "recession," "open form," "unity," and "unclearness." Both writers consider those monuments, or aspects of monuments, which best
exemplify their different stylistic criteria.
The diverse conclusions result from the fact
that the writers are dwelling on different
aspects of a remarkably varied style.
In somewhat the same way, the predominance given either to "will" or to "feeling"
(or to a conflict between them) as a psychological factor in Baroque art seems to influence the selection of works that are analyzed. Conversely, of course, one may argue
that the study of the monuments determines
the criteria. The interrelationship between
the criteria and the works of art is indubitably complex and reciprocal. We need not
argue the question of priority. One should
realize, however, that an important connection exists, say, between Sypher's emphasis
upon the "will" and his emphasis upon
Paradise Lost. Milton's "baroque bodies
and action are an idiom of incorrigible
will.""3 Even if we cdo not accept Milton as
a key Baroque figure, the presence of "will"
in Baroque art can hardly be denied; a
powerful will is expressed, for example, in
PROBLEM
of the degree to which any
seventeenth-century artist is Baroque is complex and important. Disputes concerning it
largely hinge upon the three kinds of disagreement I have considered: they may be
verbal; they may result from different but
equally sensitive perceptions; and they may
arise from the amount and kind of emphasis
given to the various elements of the style.
All three kinds may be involved and will,
of course, vary in importance according to
the type of stylistic analysis. The nature of
this problem may be indicated with reference to a familiar question: to what extent
is the art of Annibale Carracci Baroque?
And this question may most concretely be
considered with reference to the well-known
debate between Rensselaer W. Lee and
Denis Mahon about the style of Annibale.32
Lee considers Annibale an eclectic artist;
Mahon does not. This disagreement is to
some extent a verbal one. As Mahon himself says: the desirability of describing "certain paintings as eclectic in the sense that
it provides an essential key to understanding them . . involves semantic problems
of considerable complexity." For example,
Mahon rejects the significance that Lee attaches to the term "eclectic," and refers to
it as "that veritable masterpiece of concise
Moreover, Lee's statemeaninglessness."
ment that the Farnese Gallery has a "patently eclectic character, essential to its classicism" means to Mahon that Lee equates
classicism with eclecticism. May not, however, the phrase "essential to its classicism"
refer only to the particular brand of classicism that Lee finds in the Gallery? In any
THE
284
BERNARD
C. HEYL
Meanings
285
of Baroque
286
BERNARD
1"The Concept of Baroque in Literary Scholarship," JAAC (December 1946). The quotations of
Wellek that follow all come from this article which
has recently been described by Leo O. Forkey as
"perhaps the best generalization of the application
of the term 'baroque' to literature, and one in which
Buffum and other scholars who have done considerable work in this area agree" (JAAC [September
1959], p. 80). Two books that attempt, without success I believe, to apply this unified concept of the
Baroque to other fields are Carl J. Friedrich's, The
Age of the Baroque (New York, 1952), and Manfred
F. Bukofzer's, Music in the Baroque Era (New York,
1947).
2 In addition to the
array of contradictory views
cited by Wellek about Baroque style in literature, I
add the following. Whereas Grierson finds the early
Milton Baroque, Wylie Sypher considers Comus
Renaissance and Lycidas Mannerist. Hobbes epitomizes the Baroque for Friedrich, but Sypher urges
that his "inert materialism" and his failure to believe
firmly "in the efficacy of the will" prevent his achiev-
C. HEYL
Meanings
287
of Baroque
pher maintain, does it well describe important stylistic features of the century? It may be useful, I think,
if applied to artists and monuments that I have referred to above as reactionary or retardataire; but it
should surely be applied with caution, as Rudolf
Wittkower remarks in his usage in Art and Architecture in Italy 1600-1750 (Baltimore, 1958) p. 241.
22 In
his article, "Style," in A. L. Kroeber's, Anthropology Today (Chicago, 1953), p. 296.
23 Pevsner
und Grautoff, Barockmalerei in den
Romanischen Ldndern (Potsdam, 1928).
24
Op. cit., p. 186.
25
Principles of Art History, p. 21.
26 Die
Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom (Wien,
1908), p. 36.
27 "Le Bernin et le
Baroque Romain," Gazette des
Beaux Arts (1934), 327.
28 The interested reader
may find this testimony in
the following: Wolfflin, Gedanken Zur Kunstgeschichte, p. 20; Walter Abell, The Collective Dream
in Art (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), p. 324; Arnold
Hauser, Op. cit., p. 3; Andre Malraux, The Voices of
Silence (New York, 1953), p. 317.
29Op. cit.,
p. 219.
30
Principles of Art History, p. 71.
31
Op. cit., p. 209.
32
The quotations that follow come from these
publications: Mahon, Studies in Seicento Art and
Theory; Lee's review of that book in The Art Bulletin (September, 1951); and Mahon's reply to that
review in The Art Bulletin (September, 1953).
33"Definitions of the
Baroque in the Visual Arts,"
JAAC (December 1946), 114.
a Principles of
Psychology, Vol. II (Dover Publications), p. 6.
3 WValterE. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of
Mind (New Haven, 1957), Part I.