Baroque Thoughts

Unravelling a strange phase in the  Arts of the West where techne peaks in the service of Logos and rhetoric at the same time. A glorious swan song, before the narrative changed for good.

If you are new to the Band, this post is an introduction to the point of this blog that needs updating. Older posts are in the archive on the right. Shorter occult posts and other topics have menu pages above. 

Comments are welcome, but moderated for obvious reasons. If you don't see it right away, don't worry. We check and it will be up there.

Time for an Arts of the West post. The last one was a bit ago, but it can be thought of as a sort of two-parter with this one [click for a link]. We haven't had much time for online activity of any kind, but this would have taken a while anyhow. Turns out this one will be divided in two - there's a ton of pictures, and by the time we got through our pig picture stuff, length was an issue. What we're trying to do is pin down where the toxic absurdity of pretending artistic form and medium have objective rules came from. Understanding how it starts will lead to how it's corrupted and inverted into Art!

All the Arts of the West posts can be found in order under the tab up top if interested in the journey. They are tracing how the arts of the West inverted from refined mixtures of logos and techne to the  ugliness of the Modernism. Not only to cut through the official narrative distortion field around art, although that's a worthwhile part of it. The bigger point is to use the centralization and inversion of art to look at parallel patterns in the larger cultural mainstream. The inversion of art as index to the House of Lies. The series has slowed as it moves forward in time because art production expands and diversifies as Europe gets wealthy and more populous. And the art is so amazing. But the end point remains the 1913 Armory Show in New York - a symbolic date for modernism's official American debut. 

1913 is a crazy year for the beast - just take a moment and consider some highlights on the eve of Blood Sacrifice World War I. Cornerstones of the House of Lies. 

Systemic centralization?

The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the Federal government to tax all income sources

The Seventeenth Amendment establishes direct election of senators

The House of Lies posts show how centralization is necessary for the beast system. There is no House of Lies without all major aspects of society coming under central control - formal or informal. Here's the consolidation of federal financial power with further reduction of state autonomy. 

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1913

Unaccountable financial power?

The Federal Reserve System is created as the central banking system of the United States

No point belaboring this one. By now, you get it or you don't. Purely a coincidence, that Sixteenth Amendment... It remains preposterous though. A murky public-private elite collective with unaccountable financial power. By it's own description: The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government, but is still relatively independent of government.

And the privately owned banks, not the federally-appointed Board of Governors select the Board of Directors that run the banks.

Dissolution of Organic Regional Culture?

Grand Central Terminal reopens as the world's largest railroad station

Lincoln Highway, the first car road across the US, is dedicated.

Reed & Stem; Warren & Wetmore, Grand Central Station, 1903–13, New York

The Band isn't opposed to transportation. But rootless, atomized consumers are agar for the beast. 

Culture control?

The Rockefeller Foundation is chartered with a $100,000,000 donation from John D. Rockefeller

1913 dollars. Huge pools of elite wealth build and take over centralized culture. These guys are just one significant example.

Informal photograph of John D. Rockefeller, Senior (left) and John D. Rockefeller, Junior, 1921

Artistic Inversion?

Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring premiers in Paris; modernist style provokes riots

"Provoked riots" is to modernists what "they all clapped" is to gammas.

Dancers from The Rite of Spring, 1913

And, of course, the Armory Show.

Keep in mind that these are interlinked. Centralized structures allow financial power to influence culture. Financial power drives centralized structure building. And the combination is able to incrementally push outward across all channels. 

The Armory Show fits nicely into that cultural rogue's gallery for obvious reasons. We don’t try our usual type of broad pattern recognition on the 20th century because it’s too murky and ideologically distorted. Not that we have faith in the historical record further back, but at least we're limited to an existing record. It’s all we’ve got, and even when it’s accurate, it’s so sparse. The information density and infrastructure of the modern age makes historical analysis fundamentally different. And art sidesteps some historical narrative distortion by showing actual visualizations from the past. Obviously the content of artworks is no more reliable than any representation. But images can show us unconscious assumptions beyond the intentional message. We see what they saw. Quality and style observations as objective material history that flows into the present as cultural heritage.

Guido Reni, The Immaculate Conception, 1627, oil on canvas, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Reni was the most celebrated painter of his century, but fell hard out of favor. His interests - religious emotionalism and classicism - didn't fit Enlightened culture. According to the link, it's currently not on display at the Met. But whatever you think of the history of Immaculate Conception dogma or Reni's style choices, there's no question he was committed to beauty and a technical master. 

It tells a lot about the culture that valued it. And the one that didn't.

1913 may be an convenient choice, but we have to have some symbolic event to represent the arrival of Modernism. It’s an inflection point. The old terminology and media hang around, but what Western art actually was fully inverts. At this point, the official narrative is useless - not flawed or incomplete but useless - and any consideration of art needs to be written from the ground up. Or from what artists were really doing outside of the thoroughly corrupted network of art "theories" and institutions. We may tackle that some day, but if we do, it's a different project. 

Since the past posts are all linked above, we aren't going to bog readers down in long recaps. A few observations are sufficient before thinking about the Baroque.

1. Art begins as organic human expression of some sort of truth through technical skill. 

Logos + techne. The sincere desire to express something ontologically "higher" - a reflection of the divine, a true insight, an experience of beauty - however defined. That's the thing about organic cultural expressions - the variations are as endless as the micro-cultures that produce them. 

The Winged Victory of Samothrace (Nike of Samothrace), 200–190 BC, Parian marble, Louvre, Paris

2. Refined traditions develop with stable prosperous cultures.

Look at the way the marble is carved to show the body beneath. This level of skill doesn't just happen. It grows organically over time, with veteran artisans passing skills on to students and apprentices. Each creator has their own ideas and styles meaning constant innovation on a coherent development thread. Quality and creativity are incentivized by competition, Since the success of an artist ultimately depends on the appeal of his work, artists seen as "good" prosper. 

Michelangelo, Pietà, 1498–1499, marble, Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City

3. Genius is transformative in organic culture. 

In an organic competitive system, some creators have gifts that galvanize clients and the public. Since the goal of any commercial enterprise is to succeed, other artists imitate the visionary - deliberately or through influence. The Renaissance posts showed Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Raphael change the course of Western art - well before anyone wrote about it. Impressionism is another good example. 

Limburg brothers (and others), Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry folio 6, verso: June, between 1412 and 1416, or later, illumination on Vellum, Condé Museum 

4. Art reflects elite culture. 

Art making isn't necessary for survival. It's one of those second-order cultural refinements that come with surplus resources. Meaning the people controlling the surplus resources are the ones who direct the artists. And if some despot has shelled out gold to bring some esteemed artist to the palace, you can be sure that the project will promote his vision. This is also where the intrinsic vulnerability to convergence comes in - in the early 17th century, support came from a resurgent papacy and institutional Church. But in the the beast system, support comes from beast vectors. Count the ways that can go awry...

The German Renaissance master Albrecht Dürer's Feast of the Rosary is one of countless pictures where real figures are shown in flattering ways

Albrecht Dürer, Feast of the Rosary, 1506, oil on panel, National Gallery

Dürer is credited with bringing Italian Renaissance ideas to German art. He painted this during his stay in Venice, where he picked up the new Humanist thought. Note the two front figures who make a triangle with the Madonna. On the left is Pope Julius II crowned by the Child as the vicar of Christ ought to be. On the right is German emperor Frederick III. The painting was commissioned by Jakob Fugger, the powerful banker who was an intermediary between the pope and Frederick's son, Maximilian I

5. Traditionally, clients aren't at odds with the public. 

Bakers' window. Chartres Cathedral, 1210–1225 and later restorations

Not the messaging - the elites obviously favor their position over the commons. But the visual appeal of elite art is generally broad. It doesn't take Holmesian insight to see that propagandistic messaging needs to resonate. Chartres is a great example, where common folk like the bakers guild - commemorated below - funded glorious stained glass windows for the grand cathedral.

Elite art evolved to convince, intimidate, awe - impress the glory and status of the ruling order upon people in some way. Religious art wants to move and inspire by instantiating something of the divine. Art that is repulsive is literally the opposite of attracting someone to a message. It debases the image of the ruling order. It's a waste of money. 

Unless the purpose/parameterized concept has changed.

Anyhow... Thinking about the effect art has from a purpose perspective is one of those places where we can see the inversion of what art was. The question is why would something intended to persuade, awe, and/or delight would become retarded, dehumanizing, and repellent? The only answer - especially with the scale of Art! inversion over a century - is that the intended purpose is different.  Humiliation ritual comes to mind. Also cultural demoralization and degeneration by cutting off access to finest traditions. Beyond that, the underlying pattern is what we call satanic inversion [click for a post]. The complete reversal of something aligned with reality - in this case pointing to the good, the beautiful, and the true - for some sort of gain. But the only thing gained here is the destruction of beauty, truth, and culture as an end in itself

Fake goals like Progress! can't actually be the real reason because they don't exist [see axiom 5].

Robert Delaunay, Simultaneous Windows on the City, 1912, oil and spruce wood on canvas, Hamburger Kunsthalle

Metaphysically, modern art points towards the opposite end of the Ontological Hierarchy. The ultimate endpoint of evil as opposition to God in the Sorathic dissolution of Creation. Starting with the human ability to create in His image. The colors are pretty though.

Stuart Davis, Odol, 1924, oil on canvas, The Museum of Modern Art, New York

The idea that art needs to "critique" follows the same inversive pattern. Evil can't create, only distort and pervert what others make. But creating is the essence of the artist. Generating beauty and insights that did not exist before. Critique in the modern art social revolution sense is reactive and parasitic - a negative distortion of a culture created by others and not a contribution. Always remember that reality is representationally filtered. Pay attention to what they use the words to mean instead of your assumptions.

Finding abstract forms in commercial products "critiques" fine art conventions. And reveals a lot about the culture that produces it. This isn't resonating with the public.

6. Historical change may take on an impersonal, avalanche-looking momentum in hindsight, but it happens because of human decisions in human networks. 

The centralization of art - the road to Art! - starts in the Renaissance, when identifiable people started thinking about art as something with objective technical rules. Treating the techne like the abstract logos that gives the material object its status. It’s subtle and localized at first, but a wedge is created between art as a special category and the rest of images, design, and craft production. 

Apollo Belvedere, after Leochares, AD 120–140, marble, Vatican Museums, Vatican City

Take this Roman copy of a Greek statue. Its flawless classical lines and proportions made one of the most influential images in the post-medieval West. Leochares' original was probably an expression of contemporary ideal beauty. The Romans copied it because it appealed to their tastes too. It is a fine presentation of the human form.

Charles Meynier, Apollo, God of Light, Eloquence, Poetry and the Fine Arts with Urania, Muse of Astronomy, 1798, oil on canvas, Cleveland Museum of Art

But there is no objective need to quote the Apollo Belvedere in a random late l8th-century painting. That's Academic art - organic culture reduced to formulas. The techne is high because it was part of the value set. But arbitrary conventions cannot be objective standards of creative perfection. It's a category error.

Art represents abstract truth subjectively. Pretending art has fixed material rules treats the subjective part as if it was objective. 

7. Defining "art" with objective material standards starts organically. 

The new Renaissance ideas take hold with the client and influencer classes informally. Humanist intellectual culture was prestigious and popular with the elites who funded art. Art patronage became a place to compete socially by showing off good taste and wealth.  Championing artistic innovation turned creators into heroes - celebrities and geniuses to inspire future accomplishments. A culture that defined itself by progressive improvement was a natural incubator for an art that consciously strove to surpass what came before. 

Andrea del Castagno, Last Supper, 1445–1450, fresco, Sant'Apollonia, Florence

Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, 1495–1498, tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic, Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan

Raphael, The School of Athens, 1509–1511, fresco, Apostolic Palace, Vatican City

Castagno's traditional if splendid concept gives way to Leonardo's harmony and psychology that inspires Raphael's brilliant groups.

Humanist thought wasn't systematic. Basic Christian dogma plus a fetish for antiquity plus some interest in human experience coversmost of it. The first wave of art theory is loftily-worded opinion, salted with invocations of ancient texts and art. But it's influential. "Antiquity" comes to stand for a certain kind of figural idealism. And idealizing the real became a fountainhead of Western beauty. 

The styles and aesthetic canons didn't have to be this in particular. That's the secular transcendence in the idea of art as a objective cultural category. But those styles and canons were highly effective. We don't think there is any one cause for the new conception of art in the Renaissance. It's more accurate to say conditions were ripe for that sort of mental revolution. It was a natural outcome of the times.

8. Mannerism is the first self-conscious art movement. 

There is a visible change Renaissance aesthetics moving into the middle of the 16th century. We don't know how this was received by the public - obviously the works were paid for and hung in churches, frescoed on walls and stood in plazas in large numbers.  but the stylistics are easy to see. Critical self-awareness, famous geniuses, more savvy clients, competitive culture all feed into a new impression of artists as artists.

Bronzino, Resurrection of Christ, 1552, Santissima Annunziata, Florence

Mannerist distortion done well is a conscious attempt to out-art the prototypes. In terms that were purely artistic considerations. Things like grace, inventiveness, knowledge of the masters, complexity. Not practical considerations like effective messaging or rhetorical power. 

Melchior Lorck, Satire on the Papacy, 1555, etching, Metropolitan Museum of Art

It has been noted that this Mannerist strangeness occurs during a larger collapse and fragmentation of High Renaissance culture and Church. The idealistic harmony of Julius II's Christian Roman Empire gives way to Reformation and conflict. This monstrous three-headed pope paying a soldier wearing symbols of destruction would get along well with the current occupant of the Vatican.

Can't say say for sure that this is causal - art expresses culture but this sort of connection would be subtle and subconscious. But Mannerist art and the larger macro-arc are very compatible.

9. Counter-Reformation culture - loosely defined - swings the focus back to more realistic figures and rhetorical impact. 

Domenichino, The Last Communion of St. Jerome, 1612–1614, oil on canvas, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome

This is probably the biggest catalyst for the Baroque - the Church prioritizing its representational needs during its final period as the art center of the West. At a time of fierce religious competition and deep pockets. The counter-Reformation Church goes all in on the visual rhetoric with artists steeped in Renaissance ideas of excellence but free of theoretical "rules". Artistic self-awareness in the new humanist sense chasing Christian rhetorical goals with huge space for creativity. Like the father of classicism's take on the importance of sacrament and saint. A unique circumstance that lasts until the Church is replaced by secular monarchies and art becomes more restricted.

This is the narrative anyhow - lots going on elsewhere, but it is the foundation of what becomes the arts of the West. We've deviated from the conclusions because we're aware of vertical logos and post-Enlightenment materialist inversion, but we are presenting the narrative. There was a lot going on at the time that doesn't make it into the general histories - other regions kept post-medieval vernaculars much longer. The value in the narrative - ironically enough - is organic. Despite the category errors and ontological delusions and the pre-modern arts of the West are an astounding achievement. Whatever they thought they were doing, generations of artists and clients produced cascades of beauty and insight while pushing technical refinement to apex levels. Painting and sculpture may really be arbitrary categories masquadering as "liberal arts", but so are the rules of sports. And no one has their admiration of a virtuoso display of athletic prowess because the game isn't ontologically True.

These techniques and styles aren't ontologically True either, but they are the cultural heritage we have. 

Auguste Rodin, Eternal Spring, modeled ca. 1881, carved 1907, marble, Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Frenchman is considered a pioneer of modernism for his interest in formal purity over finished detail. But his debt to Michelangelo is obvious in this unfinished piece. And the form is beautiful. A pure expression of that uniquely human mix of love and passion.

Generalize - if Mannerism aligns fits a culture of instability and uncertainty, the Baroque reflects the  militant spirit of the counter-Reformation morphing into a fleeting sense of triumph. Not saying that was the conscious group intention, but the emotionalism, dynamism, exuberance and pathos do peak. It seems an organic reaction by genius creators to...

1. new possibilities of beauty from the Renaissance

All the brilliant innovations and new standards of the High Renaissance were fresh and available. The Baroque starts with an understanding of a certain kind of apex artistic creation.

2. the creativity - especially the inventive formalism - of Mannerism

The art of the later 1500s may seem weird and self-indulgent, but is did break open a lot of possibilities that hadn't been considered. Artists could take that inventive framework and apply it to truth and beauty.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Pluto and Persephone, 1621–1622, marble, Galleria Borghese, Rome

Bernini is unreal. And maybe the artist who most exemplifies the Baroque in Italy. He carved this masterpiece in his early 20s, You can see the tie to ancient and Renaissance ideals and the complicated arrangement of the parts. But the way he fills the stone with life, energy, and pathos is totally new. He may be the best carver who ever lived.

3. influences from beyond Renaissance Florence

Rome was growing fast, and artists from all over came to take advantage of the flood of projects. Some studied different traditions, like Venetian light and Northern realism, further expanding the options for artistic expression.

4. Intense religious feeling.

Whatever you think of the counter-Reformation Church, sincere Christian faith was an incredible motivator for beauty, glory, and audience appeal. It's what makes the structure of Baroque art ontologically true. Obviously there were secular subjects - see the Bernini above. But the emotional fire of the Baroque comes from the application of this artistic skill set to Logos.

Pietro da Cortona, The Annunciation, around 1665-69, oil on canvas, Chiesa di San San Francesco, Cortona

This guy was the second biggest name in Rome after Bernini and criminally forgotten today. You can see all the pieces in this altarpiece. Ideal figures arranged like Raphael. Dramatic chiaroscuro light. A diagonal structure to bring energy without losing legibility. All used to make the spiritual glory of the Incarnation visible.

It is important to emphasize that these don't determine what the art looks like. Artists don't ponder how their formal inventions and styles reflect the general zeitgeist in a conscious way.  Not to the point of thinking "I’d better express the optimistic socio-cultural swing with more dynamic forms..." Art is symbiotic with culture. It reflects and influences at the same time. Artists do consciously pursue certain ideas and interests. But the broad cultural trends are more implicit. Reflected is probably the best word. And in turn, the artworks characterize the impression of the time. What it looks like.

Think in terms of actual specific developments. The concept, styles, and techniques that make up the arts of the West after the Renaissance emerged organically through genius and chains of influence. Each piece responds to the specifics of an individual client or project and all draw from context. The galaxy of accepted norms, attitudes, and tradition that make up the raw material of artistic creation. And each piece is an original creation whose exact form could not be predicted by the ingredients. That’s why words like genius, inspiration, creator, and visionary get used so much. A new style or movement is identifiable when artists creating with similar contextuals show common traits across the different subjects of their work. The Baroque is no different. It appears in Rome around 1600 in the context of counter-Reformation Italian cultural politics and religion. But the common contextuals that define the period - drama, emotional appeal, technical innovation, and a taste for awesomeness - are adapted to different local contexts over the next century and a half. The success of the style comes from being widely applicable. With the geographical and temporal variations coming from underlying traits fitted to new circumstances and demands.

A few samples…

Peter Paul Rubens, The Fall of the Damned, 1621-22, oil on canvas, Alte Pinakothek, München

Speaking of diagonal structure and energy...

Rubens epitomizes the Flemish Baroque. The art that sprung up in the Catholic Netherlands mixed Italian ideas and Northern realism and Gothic religious intensity. Rubens' fast, fluid brush was perfect for this dynamic style.

Francisco de Zurbarán, Saint Francis of Assisi in His Tomb, 1630/34, oil on canvas, Milwaukee Art Museum

The Spanish Baroque has its own flavor. Here, one of the great masters channels the intensity that powered the great Spanish mystical tradition. The picture is actuallt pretty simple. It's the light that makes it so powerful. It seems to have two natures - the light you see by, and the spiritual light illuminating the saint.

Diego Velázquez, The Surrender of Breda, around 1635, oil on canvas, Museo del Prado

The greatest Spanish painter of the era with a moment in the Thirty Years War. He was a court painter, and you can see the early glimmerings of the royal propaganda Baroque to come. The theme here is ostensibly religious, but it a military triumph

J. B. and Dominikus Zimmermann, The Pilgrimage Church of Wies, 1745-54

The Germanic Baroques - Austria, Bavaria, etc. - flower later before being squelched by Enlightenment satanists. The integration of art forms and space comes from Italy, but the colors and Rococo ornament is distinct.

The Zimmermanns did architecture, painting, and stucco carving. They're the purest example of the Bavarian style.

Karl Georg Merville, Fall Rebel of the Angels, 1780-82, Plasterwork, St. Michael, Vienna

The Austrian Baroque looks pretty similar to the Bavarian. Heavy art-architecture integration, light colors, and elegant forms. Here's a cosmic scene carved in stucco that sprawls over the entirety of the apse. It's the last major Baroque work in Vienna.

It's worth a closer look 

Cristóbal de Villalpando, Moses and the Brazen Serpent and the Transfiguration of Jesus, 1683,  Collection Propiedad de la Nación Mexicana

Baroque art follows Catholic missionaries and colonialists, finding new forms in new places. This Mexican painter gives the light and energy a New World twist - call it Mexican Baroque.

There's tons of this stuff and very little information on the internet.

This new attitude reverberates out through Europe then beyond into the colonies. But the success is complicated. The Bavarian or Spanish Baroques don't peak until into eighteenth century, well after the official Art! narrative has changed direction.

It turns out the Baroque had two faces - sacred and secular. Much of its power comes from the ability to make heavenly glories appear palpably real.  It's roots are religious, but as the Church gives way to the Age of Absolutism, a bombastic monarchical form develops. This stream is what leads into the centralized world of academies and cultural politics that leads to modernism. You know, the Progress! narrative. The religious Baroque flowers in relative neglect apart from a photo or two in a summary. 

François Lemoyne, The Apotheosis of Hercules, from 1731 until 1736, fresco, Palace of Versailles

It's the French Academy that really drives the royal Baroque. French kings liked to associate themselves with the likes of Apollo, Alexander, and Hercules. Here's a mythical scene, done up like a religious apotheosis to glorify a French king.

Charles de La Fosse, Clytie Transformed into a Sunflower, 1688, oil on canvas, Grand Trianon, Versailles

The French Baroque was the foundation of Academic Classicism. It's still easy to see the emotional Baroque elements in it.

This post will look at the original Baroque that comes out of 1600s Rome. It will scan some big names, but is less interested in trying a comprehensive recap than observing major implications for the arts of the West. The biggest being a Logos-based connection between heaven and earth that pretty much visualizes the Ontological Hierarchy. That and sharing some incredible artistic accomplishments. 

First some basics. As always, we acknowledging using the official narrative. 

One of many classic overviews of the narrative to date.

We aren't in a position to do a comprehensive rethink of Western art and images. Because of how the Baroque spreads, it comes with a proliferation of regional and national styles - too many to cover. Some highlights are enough to give a sense of the expansiveness and creativity and give readers a starting point for further investigation if interested. 

Looking at highlights runs smack into historiographic problems. There are some considerations to even talk about the Baroque as an actual thing. First up is the name. Baroque was a pejorative used by classicism-huffing post-Enlightenment critics to insult the less constipated art of the ancien regime. It was only in the late 1800s that it started to reference a coherent stylistic period.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini, David, 1624,  marble, Galleria Borghese

An artist like Bernini didn't see himself as deviating from objective truth in material form. His  classical proportions and ideal anatomy are on point. He saw himself as one-upping the ancients or the Renaissance by taking a perfect form and making it seem to come alive.

Bertel Thorvaldsen, Jason with the Golden Fleece, 1803, marble, Thorvaldsen Museum

But for a Neoclassical sculptor, the movement and illusion pervert the pure idealism that the fake rules claim sculpture must objectively show. It's much easier to see then to explain. 

We aren't saying one is "better". Both are amazing examples of techne and logos. What we are saying is that pretending one is better because of fake rules you claim are objectively True is retarded.

This means it wasn't something that the artists of the Baroque saw themselves as. Renaissance ideology may be inane, but at least the idea of societal renewal through historical revival fits their agenda. Baroque is like Gothic in that is was applied after the fact by people hostile to the goals and values of the period. So from inception, the Baroque is tainted by distortions - disinterest and bias. Even the modern "impartial" histories are likely to treat it as a visually stimulating epilog to the Renaissance that is soon replaced by progress. Luckily, this hasn't stopped modern historians from studying what was actually going on. As expected, coverage is uneven and follows the narrative, but at least genius creators like Caravaggio and Bernini are now easy to find information on. Later manifestations of the Baroque in places like Eastern Europe and Spanish America are a lot vaguer. Cut to the chase. Because it wasn't a self-conscious movement like Renaissance humanism or modernism, there are fundamental problems with basic parameters.

Some big questions we've identified. What is the Baroque [elevator pitch length definition or shorter]? When does the Baroque start? Is there even a Baroque?

Anthony van Dyck, Charles I with M. de St Antoine, 1633, oil on canvas, Windsor Castle

What is the Baroque brings up range. The Baroque is treated as an international style, so the art appearing in different areas must show some commonalities. The standard general definitions fit there - a Renaissance-derived art that emphasizes rhetorical appeal. But we have to distinguish between the concept of Baroque as post-counter-Reformation religious art and the aesthetically-similar bombast of European aristocracy. Like Rubens' great pupil Van Dyck's vision of the Stuart Court. It makes more sense to think of it as a geneaology - born in papal Rome, then changing as it spreads. This accounts for real differences within common assumptions.

Some historians include the art of the Protestant world - Baroque as the art of Europe from around 1600-1750. There are aspects of Dutch art that fit, including direct influences from Italy. Obviously Protestant ideology is different from the counter-Reformation, but so is monarchical propaganda. There's no problem fitting them into a [encultured variations on a common set of assumptions] schema. Take Rembrandt's dramatic light and intense feeling...

Rembrandt, The Rest on The Flight into Egypt, oil on panel, 1647, National Gallery of Ireland

Or the great Dutch Golden Age landscape tradition. It's probable that the Protestant aversion to religious art drove the development of new genres. Landscape, still-life, and genre scenes proliferated. Note how Ruisdael used light and diagonals to fill the scene with dramatic foreboding. We realize we're writing "dramatic" a lot. But it really is the recurring theeme.

Jacob van Ruisdael, Wheat Fields, around 1670, oil on canvas, Metropolitan Museum of Art

When does the Baroque start? It probably kicks off in Rome around 1600. It’s sort of an arbitrary date - there are glimmerings of what seems Baroque before 1600, with artists trying to figure out ways to deliver sound messaging in rhetorically-effective forms.  The last post looked at that early counter-Reformation phase following Renaissance Mannerism in the later 1500s. It's not a great time aesthetically but it is experimental, as flux often is. And Since all periods are arbitrary, and Caravaggio and Annibale Carracci really are monster talents that peak around 1600, we'll use that. Or use them instead of a date, since both are apex innovators. 

Giuseppe Cesari, Christ Taken Prisoner, around 1597, oil on  wood, Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel  

There are Baroque elements in the counter-Reformation art of the later 1500s. The drama and energy in the work of this leading painter of the previous generation is easy to see. But the figures have a kind of Mannerist detachment. And the obvious quote of Michelangelo on the left is... well... obvious.

Is there even a Baroque is actually a good question. So far as artists and clients were talking about that new Baroque style, the answer is no. Baroque was a pejorative that misrepresented its target to the point of informational uselessness. But there was a conscious revival of art after the counter-Reformation that broke new ground rhetorically. And those innovations influenced creators in other places who filter the ideas through their own cultural norms. Organic growth from an identifiable attitude is real. The arts of the West did change. We need a term for it if we want to discuss it - representational filtering - and Baroque is as good as any. 

Since styles and periods are really just abstracted generalizations of what artists were doing, the big influential names are the best way to understand them. Full disclosure - we are aware that this is a tiny selection of art chosen by us to fit the post. But they are chosen to be representative of the prevailing traits that define the era. Our contribution is reality-facing recognition of how it fits with the non-inverted logos and techne of the arts of the West.

Caravaggio (1571-1610)

The two big names that come out of that experimental period at the end of the 1500s are Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio and Annibale Carracci. Just like the High Renaissance, ideas don't become transforming without genius creators to make them real. To show the culture what is possible. If we are trying to define periods, these two exact contemporaries stand out from the churn of Roman art for their talent and vision. They're very different on the surface but share certain traits that define the nascent Baroque. And both are directly and indirectly influential on the tradition in ways that their their artistic peers weren't.

Caravaggio, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, 1598-99, oil on canvas, Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid

We'll start with Caravaggio because he arrives in Rome a couple of years earlier and is more famous today. That's a modern thing - Carracci had way more direct impact, but Caravaggio better fits today's sensibilities. Caravaggio did make a big splash, but fell out of vogue by the end of the 1600s. His lasting influence is more indirect - dramatic close-ups and powerhouse symbolic chiaroscuro. 

Like this celebration of an early Christian martyr. Not photorealistic, but radiating life and awareness.

Ottavio Leoni, Portrait of Caravaggio, around 1621, Biblioteca Marucelliana

Caravaggio came from the village of Caravaggio near Venice and was trained in the late Venetian Renaissance manner. He arrived to Rome in 1593 - one of many artists and craftsmen drawn by plentiful jobs in the resurgent city. Some artists - like Carracci who came in 1595 - were brought in by wealthy patrons and had high profile jobs waiting for them. Caravaggio wasn't one of them, and he spent his first months as an impoverished street painter. It didn't take long for his talent to attract attention.

There's something magical about Caravaggio at his best. This is a simple Northern-type genre scene with a moralizing message about the wages of sin. But there's a mix of living spontaneity and timelessness that's hard to describe.

Caravaggio, The Cardsharps, 1594, oil on canvas, Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth

By 1594 he was part of the household of Cardinal del Monte - a Medici associate and throwback to the refined culture of the High Renaissance. This was Caravaggio's entry into the elite Roman art world. But his background left him with a very personal style that was electrically popular but controversial. Even the elites were split on him. The public love him though and his dramatic light and real, engaging figures created a sensation. 

Some highlights from that del Monte era. His Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy set the standard for deep Baroque mystical feeling. That light...

Caravaggio, Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy, 1595, oil on canvas, Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut

His only painting with a real landscape background shows the dream of Joseph with a lyrical beauty. Del Monte's household was like an oasis of Renaissance culture in counter-Reformation Rome. He was at the center of a group of aesthete patrons and was probably even more interested in music than painting. Caravaggio has a reputation for violent and erratic behavior. But del Monte's world gave him that other side that let him function among the upper classes.

Caravaggio, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1597, oil on canvas, Doria Pamphilj Gallery, Rome

We do have to consider the homoerotic elements of Caracaggio's art. The catamite boys are hard to explain away, but it's always hard to interpret the past. He was known to frequent brothels, so it's likely he was just a deviant. He could also be reflecting del Monte's world.

Caravaggio, The Lute Player (Hermitage version), around 1600, oil on canvas, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg

This del Monte castrato does show Caravaggio's skills. The figure seems really present with instruments sticking out into our space. His fruit and flowers are astounding.

Part of the reason Caravaggio offended later critics was his irreverence towards the classical tradition. His Bacchus has that same shocking presence, but there's nothing divine about this florid guy in a cheap costume. 

Caravaggio, Bacchus, 1596, oil on canvas, Uffizi, Florence

The key to Caravaggio's magic is diagonal light. He's rightfully known for his chiaroscuro, but it's not just the light and shadow. It's the diagonal light that cuts across the darkness from a top corner and makes the figure seem to come forward. Part of what makes Caravaggio's art so magnetic is the way it seems to push out instead of depicting a scene.

By 1600 he was the highest paid artist in the city. Almost all major painters in the first decades of the 1600s had Caravaggio phase, where they come to grips with his impact. But the new critical ideas about art as an objective category with implicit rules that came out of the Renaissance were also taking form. Starting during Caravaggio's own life time, critical consensus was negative or at best ambivalent. His rejection of Raphaelesque classicism violated the slowly-forming ideals about art. Lack of anatomical accuracy, unheroic unidealized figures, harmony-busting light contrasts, lack of landscape or architectural backgrounds, sometimes inappropriate depictions, irreverence towards antiquity and the great masters are typical complaints. This is probably why he gradually slipped into obscurity before his 20th century revival.

But none of that matters in the face of his burning intensity. It's crazy to imaging caring about the position of Judith's wrist or Holofernes' soldier anatomy.

Caravaggio, Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1598–1599, il on canvas, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica at Palazzo Barberini, Rome

The "rediscovery" of Caravaggio is a great example of the cost of an "autonomous" art with fake rule-huffing experts. Clearly Caravaggio's art is appealing. He was super popular in his day, and one of the most popular of his era today. And it isn't just NPCs being told what they think. When shown Caravaggio, people responded. He can be polarizing because he is so insistent - if you don't like his style, he's really off-putting. But he is objectively a great artist. One who would have no doubt appealed to the 18th and 19th-century public too. But they didn't know about him because he was buried, and when his name came up, it was dismissed as crap. Visual awareness is one place where the internet really has helped.

So what is Caravaggio's impact? Mystic light, drama, and realism that pushes into our world. Early works like The Cardsharps soon give way to mature masterpieces like this…

Caravaggio, The Calling of Saint Matthew, 1599–1600, oil on canvas, San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome

His painting brings you into a blended world. The Calling of Matthew is on one of the walls of the Contarelli Chapel, his first major public art project. Each wall has a big oil painting showing the calling, inspiration, and martyrdom of Matthew. What's so innovative though is how that projecting interactive real quality in his art seems to change the space of the chapel.

A look at the Contarelli Chapel. You can see how the scenes seem to bleed into the interior. They're obviously paintings, but they make you feel as if in the presence of miracles.

One real Baroque trick is how that diagonal light in Caravaggio's paintings seems to line up with the real light of the windows. If light is also a symbol, then you aren't just sharing space with Biblical heroes. You're bathed in the same spiritual light.

The interactivity is another violation of what will become the art rules. For art to be an objective category, it has to be autonomous [click for a post]. But the Baroque was chasing rhetorical appeal, and turning that dramatic, emotional art into a participatory experience was next level. Remember that a chapel is a worship space with a real consecrated altar. The mystical rituals of the place are perfectly complemented by the paintings.

Success follows the Contarelli Chapel - for a few years, anyhow. Caravaggio's violent tendencies would eventually lead to his forced exit from Rome in 1606. His big altarpieces are astounding.

Caravaggio, The Entombment of Christ, 1603–1604, oil on canvas, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Vatican City

The tomb slab projects out and the body of Christ seems to be lowered to the consecrated host on the altar below - a visualization of counter-Reformation Eucharistic theology.. In critical speak, the figures are too crowded together to be real. But the sense of downward and outward movement is worth the cost.

Caravaggio, Madonna di Loreto, 1604-1606, oil on canvas, Sant'Agostino, Rome

This one was criticized as indecorous for the pilgrim's dirty feet sticking out. But barefoot was pilgrim convention. And the painting was wildly popular with the general public who were unused to such relatable figures. 

The St. Jerome takes enlightened spirituality to a new level. On a symbolic level, it celebrates counter-Reformation points about the cult of the saints, the authority of the Vulgate (translated by Jerome), and the importance of being always mindful of one's mortality. But all that takes a back seat to the overpowering feel of venerable spiritual intensity.

Caravaggio, Saint Jerome, between 1605 and 1606, oil on canvas, Galleria Borghese

As noted above, Caravaggio was forced to flee Rome after killing a man in a fight over a wager, and spent his last few years on the move. A brief stint in the Knights of Malta (!!) indicates Caravaggio's legitimate skill with a sword and his inability to get along with order.

Caravaggio, Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt, 1607–1608, oil on canvas, Louvre, Paris

Caravaggio's portrait of the general of that most celebrated military order. Unfortuantely, Caravaggio wasn't a member for long before getting into a duel with a brother member and winding up imprisoned. He managed to escape, but was certainly not welcomed back. 

While he was in Malta, Caravaggio continued to paint. His huge Beheading of Saint John is a masterpiece of stark monumental pathos. He even signed his name in the Baptist’s blood.

Caravaggio, The Beheading of Saint John, 1608, oil on canvas, Saint John's Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta

It's haunting in its setting.

The increasing instability looks like a degenerative mental condition - it’s hard to say from over 400 years in the future, but lead paint was a legitimate danger. Whatever the cause of his problems, his supporters never stopped lobbying for a pardon. It was finally granted by Pope Paul V's notorious aesthete nephew Scipione Borghese in exchange for several paintings for the growing Borghese collection. Caravaggio's life ended tragically when he died of a fever on the voyage back to Rome. But his influence was set. And Scipione Borghese did make sure to get his paintings when the ship arrived.

Annibale Carracci (1560-1609)

Caravaggio's great contemporary brought a completely different approach to art and had far more impact on the next couple of centuries. The difference in fame today is another sign of the shift from logis + techne to fake authorities. Annibale also came from outside Rome - he was from Bologna where he, his brother Agostino, and his cousin Lodovico had established an art workshop and school. The school is the historically innovative part - the Accademia degli Incamminati is considered the first art academy in modern sense in the West.

Annibale Carracci, Self-portrait, around 1604, oil on panel, Hermitage Museum

The Carracci - like most insightful late 16th-centuary artists - were aware of the stylistic problems of Mannerism and the new requirements for Church art. “Accademia degli Incamminati” means those who are on the path or are progressing. What made the Carracci different was their conscious and systematic approach to a solution. An approach that laid the foundations for the academic structure that would dominate European culture. Of course, their goals weren't so lofty. They just set out to study what they considered the great painting traditions of the previous century and figure out how to amalgamate them into something new. 

But unlike Mannerist self-referencing, the Carracci also considered naturalism - the representation of nature - to be a necessity. They drew on different sources to get there, but basically reestablished the High Renaissance idea that art should be real and artistically perfected at the same time. There's a strong realist side in Annibale's early work that seems almost Northern. It's this sharp interest in the real world that breaks his art out of the Mannerist trap.

Annibale Carracci, Boy Drinking, 1582-1583, oil on canvas, Cleveland Museum of Art  

This painting uses quick, rough brush work to add a sense of lively movement. The tilted head is tricky foreshortening. And effects of light on glass and liquid have always been places for artists to show their skill. Look at Caravaggio's Bacchus up above.

When he puts it all together, Annibale has a fresh vibrant art with strong roots in tradition and high technical skill. This led the Carracci to the top of Bolognese painting and drew the attention of big Roman clients. 

Annibale Carracci, Assumption of Mary, around 1590, oil on canvas, Museo del Prado

Annibale hitting his Bolognese peak. He's using a fluid Venetian style with a better understanding of form and structure. 1590 and you can see that Baroque dynamic drama already.

The early influences on Carracci art came from local Emelian traditions, nearby Venice, and the sensuous illusionism of Correggio. There was interest in Lombard and Netherlandish realism. Arrival in Rome brought first-hand exposure to the achievements of the High Renaissance and grandeur of antiquity. An early Roman painting shows Raphael's influence on the harmonious structure and a new emphasis on heroic anatomy. Note the sensuous textures and Venetian light. 

Annibale Carracci,  The Coronation of the Virgin, oil on canvas, after 1595, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Critics eventually turned on the Carracci in the 18th century, accusing them of "ecclectism". Meaning they picked and chose from different traditions without any inner coherent vision of their own. This, of course, is nonsense. It is true that the Carracci learned from and assimilated diverse influences. But the sainted Raphael developed his flawless technique he same way. And like Raphael, Annibale and Lodovico turned their experimental early years into clear personal visions. Annibale's would change the arts of the West.

Among other things, Annibale is credited with inventing the "classical landscape". This is a landscape structured according to classical ideals and it became a mainstay of the Arts of the West. Only someone at home in classical and landscape traditions could have put something like this together. 

Annibale Carracci, The Flight into Egypt, 1603-1604, oil on canvas, Doria Pamphilj Gallery, Rome

The landscape is harmonious and carefully structured to emphasize the Holy Family in the center. The mood is serious, without drama or delight. Classical.

The idea of studying old masters to assimilate and improve on them while staying true to nature was hardly new. We spent a post on Raphael showing how doing just that made him the greatest painter to ever live. Before Annibale came to Rome in 1595, the Carracci really only knew his work through prints, but there's a natural affinity between them. Raphael wasn't systematic though. The Carracci took their lessons from the past and turned them into a training program for their accademy.

This is the influential part. A theoretical approach to good art plus a technical training facility to put it into practice. The effectiveness of this model became obvious when Carracci students dominated Roman art after the passing of Annibale and Caravaggio. Their training made them uniformly proficient in different media and comfortable with different projects. Their ideology was in line with the masters of the Renaissance and the dogma of the Church. This holistic blend of theory and practice is what made the Accademies so successful. 

A striking sense real life with dramatic Venetian light and color effects and the heroic idealism and anatomy of the Roman-Florentine Renaissance classical tradition is astounding.

Annibale Carracci, Pietà, around 1600, oil on canvas, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples

Annibale Carracci, Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way (Domine, Quo Vadis?), 1601-1602, oil on panel, National Gallery 

Like the Renaissance, but more rhetorical. More moving, dynamic, engaging. But based in tradition in a way that already assumes the existence of art as an objective category.

Annibale's career was short like Caravaggio's, but for different reasons. Where Caravaggio seems manic and conflicted, Annibale appears to suffer from some degenerative psycho-physical condition. He gradually lost his will to paint, before dying in 1609 and leaving his students to finish his greatest work. The result is that the two great transformative painters of the early Baroque were gone shortly after opening radical new possibilities. Caravaggio's name in Rome came from his oil paintings hanging in churches and palaces around. Annibale had been a prolific painter, but his seminal work was a huge fresco project - the ceiling of the Farnese Gallery for one of Rome's most powerful families.

Annibale Carracci and studio, The Loves of the Gods, 1597-1608, fresco, Palazzo Farnese, Rome

The Farnese Gallery was an unlikely birthplace for a new art associated with maturing counter-Reformation culture. The Farnese - like any apex Roman family - had papal ties, but the gallery was in their private palace. It is true that the modern concept of separate "secular" and "sacred" was much less clear than today, but there was still a distinction between private and public culture. When a powerful family built or provided art for a church or chapel, the work would flatter them but stuck to appropriate religious subjects. Private spaces were where holdover humanistic Renaissance subjects could be found. Mythologies, portraits, and all the other elements of of the preceding two centuries didn't completely disappear. They went indoors - out of the sight of the counter-Reformation public. 

The Farnese had a history of seminal art projects. Michelangelo had been involved in the design of the family palace, and the finished work set a standard for aristocratic Roman city homes. 

Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Michelangelo, and others, Palazzo Farnese, original 1517 expanded after Alessandro Farnese became Pope Paul III in 1534, Rome

When Alessandro Farnese became Pope Paul III, the family's considerable wealth and standing jumped another level. The new palace needed suitably grand decoration, and Salviati's fresco projects of the 1550 are highpoints of aristocratic Roman Mannerism. You can see the use of illusionary artworks, but the whole thing lacks clarity of focus or much emphasis on realism.

Francesco Salviati, History of the Farnese, around 1558, fresco, Salotto Dipinto, Palazzo Farnese, Rome

Along with their palace, in 1579 they purchased the old Chigi Villa with Raphael's celebrated mythological frescos and renamed it the Farnesina. 

Raphael, Triumph of Galatea, c.1512, fresco, Villa Farnesina, Rome

The Galatea was a foundational work in defining the Western classical ideal. Real and vibrant but structured and elevated to a superhuman state. 

Raphael, The Loggia of Psyche, 1517-18, fresco, Villa Farnesina, Rome

Raphael's team returned to the Farnesina a few years later to fresco the loggia - an open air space connecting the villa and gardens. The illusion of an arbor structure opening to the sky and filled with classical dream figures and tapestries would be a huge influence on Annibale. The Farnese gallery is a similar shape to the Farnesina loggia.

So Annibale's Gallery took its place in a continuum of esteemed art. An opportunity to show something fresh against the triumphs of the past. What better place to launch a new era? 

The concept of the ceiling is an imaginary art gallery with pictures of the loves of the gods - a Renaissance-style mythological cycle derived mainly from Ovid's Metamorphoses. The scenes are surrounded by a host of other things - livelier nudes than Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, bronze reliefs, animated statues, etc. What's new is how real it all feels. Compared to this, the Sistine Chapel and Farnesina loggia seem flat and artificial. It's the meta that is so interesting - showing the theme of metamorphosis by making the ceiling seem to metamorphosize. Baroque illusion and interactivity - it dazzles by seeming to transform the real world around you. 

The theme of the Gallery is It's full of quotes of antiquity and the Renaissance masters, but it has a vibrant fresh realism that is new.

Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel ceiling, 1508 and 1512, fresco

The concept a big debt to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. The idea of a fictional architecture organizing paintings of scenes, sculpture, and figures is the same. But Michelangelo's ceiling is lofty and monumental. It's a wonder. What is doesn't do is play with your perceptions and suggest something really happening.

The difference from Caravaggio is that this explosive realism works with the art tradition coming out of the Renaissance. The figures are idealized like the old masters and references to other masterpieces are reverential and not ironic. The result has no precedent. It's exuberant. 

Check out an end wall. The illusory "oil painting" shows Polyphemus throwing a rock at Acis and Galatea - a direct reference to Raphael's Farnesina fresco. The figures fit the antique-Renaissance ideal but are full of violent movement. It's the surroundings that are really incredible. Layers superimposed over architecture that seems to come to life with the sky beyond. And it’s all flat frescoed wall. Description doesn't do it justice. That's also typical of the Baroque.

The mythological scenes like Diana and Endymion bring sensuousness and Venetian atmosphere to a Renaissance ideal. And as always, the surroundings steal the show. Again, all of this is paint on a smooth curved ceiling.

Bronze reliefs like the Sistine Chapel and theater masks like... nothing else really.

The Band has a special fondness for the big center scene of Bacchus and Ariadne. Take a look at our banner. A classical-Renaissance frieze-type structure that has a vaguely sculptural look while bursting with energy and life. An ideal made real as perfect avatar for the Band. We won't repeat all the parts again, but if you've read this far, it's easy to see them.

In one swoop Annibale revived High Renaissance idealism, replaced Mannerist complexity with virtual reality, and left the viewers wondering where their world ends and the art starts. The project was secular themed, but it's easy to see how the new style could give the Church the focused and emotionally appealing messaging it wanted. 

The Carracci academic approach to art theory and training gave Annibale a very different legacy from Caravaggio. A pipeline of highly trained students that could plug into the Roman art network and dominate the scene for a decade or more. What's interesting is that Annibale's Farnese Gallery contains the seeds for both sides of the big theoretical debates that dominated criticism of the era. This is the idea of Classic and Baroque as opposing stylistic poles within the art of the "Baroque" period. [We said the historiography is a mess]. The opposition originates in the work of seminal art historian Heinrich Wölfflin - a student of Burkhardt and acquaintance of Nietzsche. 

Nicolas Poussin, Et in Arcadia ego, 1637–1638, oil on canvas, Musée du Louvre, Paris

Poussin was a French painter who spent his career in Rome and became the central figure in the classicizing side of the Baroque. After Raphael, no artist was more important to the French Academy vision of good art. But you can still see the "Baroque" period traits. The overall elegiac mood and expressive landscape convey melancholy over the fleeting nature of worldly ideals.

Wolfflin is credited with establishing the Baroque as a modern critical category and not an unsystematic insult [click for a link to a sample of his thought]. But he did so within his larger project - laying out a set of general principles for formally analyzing art. He instinctively favors the lucid classicism represented by the Renaissance, with the Baroque as an emotionalized foil. And has no real interest in the content of the images, how they communicate, or the context that produced them. He basically assumes the fake objectivity around "art" is real and goes from there. This is probably where the generalized, detached formalism in the definition of Baroque comes from. And why it seems able to span so many different contexts. 

What we can see historically is a recurring tendency towards binary impulses that correspond to rough contemporary ideas about logic and emotion. This starts in Renaissance criticism with the Rome-Florence/Venice opposition between logical design and emotional color. Basically taking the preferred technical approaches in each style and pretending they represent timeless values through the magic of secular transcendence. The terms change in the Baroque, but that logic-emotion binary structure does not. It becomes Baroque-Classic, then Neoclassic-Baroque/Rococo, then Romantic-Neoclassic. Because artists don't actually commit to neat stylistic limits, the binaries are only useful for broad trends in the official narrative. But we can see a big one in the wake of Annibale.

Adolph Tidemand and Hans Gude, Fishing with a Harpoon, 1851, oil on canvas, National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design

There are a lot of Baroque emotional techniques in Romanticism. Chiaroscuro and dramatic wonder. But Romanticism is post-Enlightenment and trapped in the contradictory secular transcendences of materialist ontology and art as an objective abstract entity.

The Carracci students that set the tone for Roman art do seem to split between the clear, rational, classical and energetic, emotional, baroque sides of their master's art. A generalization, because there were a lot of painters following Annibale that we don't know much about. But it does seem to apply to the influential and successful ones. Like Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri).

Domenichino (1581-1641) was the wellspring of post-Renaissance classicism, a huge influence on Poussin, and considered one of the greatest artists of all time until the late 1800s. His work is meticulously planned and carefully researched, with a full understanding of contemporary aesthetic dogmas. His Last Communion of St. Jerome up above shows his mature style. It's hard to describe what "classicism" is because its more of an attitude that depends on context. The Last Communion of St. Jerome has some base Baroque qualities because it is a 17th-century painting. What's classical are the lucid, individually designed figures, the careful harmonious structure, temperate colors, and overall solumn mood.

Domenichino, A Sibyl, 1620s, oil on canvas, The Wallace Collection

Like pretty much all newly-arrived artists to early 17th-century Rome, Domenichino had to deal with the impact of Caravaggio. But he never stops being classical. The meticulous detail and ideal form of Raphael with china skin that could be Neoclassicism.

Peak Domenichino shows what the foundations of post-Renaissance classicism looks like. The most abstract, ideal side of Annibale's exuberant new formula.

Domenichino, Mary Magdalene Taken up to Heaven, around 1620, oil on canvas, Hermitage Museum 

This is what amping up the classicism of Annibale's new classical landscape looks like. 

Domenichino, Landscape with Moses and the Burning Bush, between 1610-1616, oil on copper, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

It's a small painting - about a foot and a half high. Small paintings on copper were popular in the early 1600s - the metal makes for a more luminous look. Domenichino's delicate meticulous approach was perfect for this kind of work.

Giovanni Lanfranco (1582-1647) went the opposite way, pushing the "Baroque" sides of Carracci art. Angular designs, fluid figures designed more as a group than individuals, and dramatic light. He came to Rome to help Annibale on the Farnese ceiling like Domenichino and the other big Carracci Academy students. This is one of his earlier independent works in the city. That Carracci Academy attention to structure is obvious. But the impact of Caravaggio's light completely changes the atmosphere.

Giovanni Lanfranco, The Adoration of the Shepherds (The Night), between 1606 and 1607, oil on canvas, Alnwick Castle

A big Lanfranco altarpiece from his mature period. He and Domenichino became rivals and enemies - competing for projects with oppositional ideas about what art should be. Compare this to the Domenichino altarpieces.

Giovanni Lanfranco, Coronation of the Virgin with St Augustine and St William of Aquitaine, around 1616, oil on canvas, Louvre Museum   

Note how the figures are relatively indistinct and the spatial relations unclear. Heaven and earth are coming together in a way that captures mystical irrationality and dramatic emotional appeal. You can still find ties to past tradition. But way less overtly than in classicism.

Even when he's at his most classical - remember both tendencies are implicit in Annibale's new art - Lanfranco never loses the chiaroscuro and expressiveness. This is a good example of his Baroque with a strong classicizing foundation. Just as Domenichino's classicism has Baroque movement and energy.

Giovanni Lanfranco, Hagar and the Angel in the Desert, before 1647, oil on canvas, Louvre Museum, Paris

Like any reductive historical distortion, the Baroque-Classic binary needs examples, and Domenichino and Lanfranco leave a big one in the church of Sant'Andrea della Valle. This grand new Theatine church was part of that counter-Reformation boom in new churches and religious orders. Lots of new buildings meant lots of walls and chapels for artists. And devotion to Andrew fit with the fascination with martyrs and the early Church. Getting the choir project was a triumph for Domenichino - it was the highest profile painting job in the city at the time. But his victory was short lived. Lanfranco was given the crown jewel of the whole thing - the dome.

Pitting rival artists against each other was a time-honored way to get the most out of them.  At Sant'Andrea della Valle, the mutual hatred was creative dynamite. Here's the choir and dome...

Domenichino's choir and apse frescos show his clear expressive logical approach. Scenes from the life of St. Andrew with his apotheosis - heavenly ascent - at the center. The gilded stucco work divides the scenes into distinct panels. Each scene is independent - they don't relate visually across real space.

Domenichino, Paintings in the choir of Sant'Andrea della Valle, 1622-28, fresco, Rome

There are carved stucco figures too. They don't seem to be part of the paintings or our real world either. Clean and lucid in individual content and overall structure. But still grand and rhetorical in splendor. This kind of classical Baroque is what will become dominant in the narrative via the French Academy.

Close-up of Domenichino's martyrdom of St. Andrew scene. Linear, carefuly-designed figures in harmonious groupings. On the emotionalism side, there's the dramatic subject. And beneath the careful structure there's real 3D effect. 

The dome is where things went sideways for Domenichino. He was commissioned to paint the four Evangelists on the supporting pendentives. It was typical to put heaven-earth transition figures here - like Evangelists, prophets, or Doctors of the Church. The pendentive is a transitional element architecturally, so there's nice synergy between content and function. He assumed he'd get the dome, but Lanfranco's style was way better fitted to what was wanted. The dome is the first of those visionary Baroque ceilings where it seems the roof actually opens into the supernatural.

Look closely at the dome in the photo right above. Note how Mary is placed on the side of the drum supporting the dome so as to be visible to visitors coming down the nave towards the altar. You see her rising against the heavenly host and your eye naturally follows her path to her divine reward. The “space” in the painting and the space of your experience seem to blend together. 

Lanfranco basically invents the Baroque ceiling. He is able to transform solid wall into an illusion of Heaven because he doesn't share Domnenichino's commitment to classical painting. His isn't operating from the preconception that art has to abide by certain arbitrary rules masquerading as abstract truths. The result speaks for itself. Rings of light and clouds surrounding the ascending Mary and melting into unknowable golden light. It's literally a passage from material reality through abstract reality to ultimate reality. You might even call it ontologically hierarchical. 

This tells us that stylistic differences were recognized and understood, only without the later value judgments that would trash the Baroque. High level patrons could put the supposed antipodes side-by-side if the desired outcome called for it.

Mary rising. Even the architectural structure is adapted. God the Father appears at the highest point - the top of the central lantern that lets the light in.

Note how Lanfranco's mingled figures give the sense of a vast and indeterminate throng.

When thinking about secular trancendences like style being objective truth, It's important to correctly identify where the error is. We are not saying that classical principles can't generate good art. Defined borders and carefully ordered structure deliver clear and unambiguous messages. Harmony and idealism inject a sense of nobility and virtue that resonates subconsciously. But these are material solutions to material problems. Carracci's academy project responded to practical demands for engaging and effective art. He did draw on antique and Renaissance versions of classicism, but he also drew on "unclassical" traditions like Venetian light and color and Parmese sensuousness. A purpose-driven hybrid approach that got the desired response. Caravaggio's development was totally different - personal and idiosyncratic, not historically conscious and systematic. But his goals - successful, engaging painting - were the same. The both leveraged their skill sets and attitudes to accomplish the same outcomes. 

The difference with Domenichino is one of purpose. He took the classical principles - harmony, balance, tempered emotion, idealism - as given before even thinking about what's most effective for a particular project. The key is "given". The pretense that preference somehow becomes abstract Truth is the core secular transcendence at the core of Art! It's what that this whole Arts of the West journey is unraveling. 

Guido Reni, Archangel Michael defeats Satan, between 1630 and 1635, oil on canvas, Santa Maria della Concezione dei Cappuccini

This Carracci student was revered for his clear classical style and Raphael derived gracefulness. His popularity faded in modern times - criticized for traditionalism, sentimentality, or lack of realism. 

Reni's work is technically excellent with elegant beauty, and it does have a sort of artificial preciousness. Like Mannerism if it were attractive. It's easy to see how opinions could be really different based on personal tastes. The problem isn't liking Reni's art. It's the false premise that it is what art has to or must not be.

The other thing to remember is that the fiction of art rules doesn't appear fully formed. Domenichino becomes an example that layers of later critics progressively build into a rule set. He probably believed his approach was objectively superior for the the old Humanist reasons. But this attitude didn't dominate the art world yet. Lanfranco could match his success with his radically different style. And Bernini - the ultimate Neoclassical whipping boy - was just around the corner. It's in critical hindsight that Domenichino, and later Poussin, are reimagined as theoretical templates. 

The reality is that different types of art affect people in different ways. In the free-wheeling world of the early Baroque, styles were chosen to suit the project. At Sant'Andrea della Valle, Domenichino's big figures and legible narratives were ideal for purpose. On the other hand, Lanfranco's integrated cosmos and swirling energy better suited a vision of heavenly glory. And before that, Annibale and Caravaggio had been hired to decorate the same chapel at the same time. That collaboration was a blast of conspicuous consumption - the two highest earning artists in the city head to head. But the results are revolutionary. A mix of styles and space that puts the visitor in a simulation of the Ontological Hierarchy. 

Cerasi Chapel, 1600-01, oil on canvas, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome

The chapel is a space opening off the interior of a church used for private devotion and family burial. The Cerasi Chapel has an altarpiece by Annibale and a painting on each side wall by Caravaggio. 

Family prestige was a big factor in chapel decoration. Putting the top two painters in the city side by side was a way to push them to do their best and make a splash on the Roman scene. But what the artists did was even more important for art.

The paintings on the walls of the Cerasi Chapel are oils instead of the frescos usually found in Italian chapels. It's hard to get a picture of the group because it's such a narrow space. But that enhances the impact live. When you enter, you're surrounded by powerful images in new styles designed to grab attention.

Annibale's altarpiece is a showcase for his mix of classical design and vibrant Baroque emotion. Caravaggio responded with stripped-down realism and chiaroscuro that makes the painting seem to spill into our world. Here's a closer look.

Annibale Carracci, Assumption of the Virgin, 1600-1602, oil on wood, Santa Maria del Popolo

High Renaissance figure types with supernatural Venetian light and palpable presence. Mary seems to ascend from behind the altar into the unknowable radiance of heaven. 

One thing Baroque artists did that is so ontologically-representationally accurate is indicate passage into ultimate reality with indeterminate light. The sense of movement makes a smooth continuity from the material world of the Apostles through spiritual abstraction and beyond the limits of discernment. Levels of reality connected by Logos.

Caravaggio, Crucifixion of Saint Peter, 1601, oil on canvas, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome

Caravaggio's Crucifixion of Peter and Conversion of Paul are some of the purest examples of his powerful art. The scenes are pared down to the minimum with down-to-earth figures. Part of his public popularity came from accessibility - ordinary viewers could identify with his characters. The expressions are powerful and easy to read. Then there's the light. Caravaggio's chiaroscuro uses diagonal lighting to bring his figures out from dark backgrounds and seem like they're coming forward. 

The concept was drawn from Michelangelo, but the gritty realism of the martyr's path is uniquey him.

Caravaggio, The Conversion on the Way to Damascus, 1601, oil on canvas, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome

The moment of conversion - Paul is struck by the light while his groom remains unaware of what is happening. The massive horse and fallen saint take Caravaggio's usual tendency to make his art project outward to an extreme.

The real innovation comes from the way his painted light seems to correspond from the natural light from the windows. Caravaggio's light does two things at once. Physically, it lets you see the figures. Symbolically, it represents Grace - God's supernatural presence in the material world. By blending this with the real light in the chapel, you are shown that you have access to the same grace that shone on the Apostles. Obviously different -  one's a painting of the 1st century, the other is you in a Roman chapel - but illuminated by the same truths. 

Annibale's altarpiece is different. A blast of Venetian color and emotion over dynamic and idealized figures. Beyond the altar and the Host - the physical signs of the Church's intermediary role - the glory behind the faith shines out. A vision  of abstract truths beyond the material. Abstract as defined through Catholic theology, but abstract all the same. And beyond that? Discernment melts into light - the foundations of ultimate reality that can't be known directly. But note how this heavenly light lines up visually with Caravaggio's walls and the upper window. It's all the same truth, manifesting on the appropriate level. The basic structure of the Ontological Hierarchy, with light and ritual as binding logos. 

The incredible thing is that is is immersive. You go into the chapel and are surrounded by Caravaggio's gritty scenes of material faith. Directed along with them to the glorious truth they reveal. There's no subordination to theoretical principles. No containment of each autonomous work. No style proscriptions. For it to work, it has to be sincere and convincing. It's why Baroque becomes hollow when cut off from its spiritual roots. Caravaggio brings the gritty reality of martyrdom and miracle down to earth. Visualized in relatable ways to a common man. Annibale shows what is concealed beneath that simple exterior. And the whole thing plays out in the space you worship in.

This is the Baroque as we understand it. High-level techne and creativity to actually visualize theological things and relations. With maximum emphasis on rhetorical appeal. Purpose-driven problem solving with the fruits of Renaissance art as raw material. 

Seeing how long this post is already, it's best to cut here and pick up with a Baroque part 2 to cover the spread and decline. But before that, there's one more founding artist to consider - the great Flemish painter Rubens who brought a similar approach to Annibale to Northern Europe. 

Rubens (1577-1640)

Rubens hit maturity a little later than Annibale and Caravaggio, but was in Italy studying and painting from 1602. He came from the late Northern Renaissance schools of art and humanistic thought, so his ideas about antiquity and the great masters is familiar. But Flemish painting had more emphasis on realism and landscape than the Italian Renaissance with less reverence for classicism. So Rubens starts from a different place when he sets out to study the Italian traditions, but uses them to build his own style like Annibale had.

Peter Paul Rubens, Rubens und Isabella Brant in the Honeysuckle Bower, 1609-1610, oil on canvas, Alte Pinakothek

Rubens shortly after his return to Antwerp from Italy. He was instantly successful and went on to redefine the social heights available to an artist. Knighted by two kings, he he became the painter of the aristocracy and fabulously wealthy.

Here he is with his first wife. He was apparently doing a lot of calf raises at the time.

Rubens is a fascinating character - a diplomat, spy, and businessman as well as a painter. He spent 1600-1608 travelling around Italy learning what he could and assimilating it into his own style. His return to Antwerp coincided with a burst of prosperity following the Twelve Years' Truce, a break in the Wars of Religion. His Raising of the Cross of 1611 was his real public coming out party. Powerful idealized figures and structure, rich landscape, blazing color, superhuman pathos and energy with brilliant technical painting. Rubens was a phenomenal colorist and technician. It is easy to chuckle at his corpulent women, but the way he paints flesh is unbelievable.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Elevation of the Cross, 1610–11, oil on wood, Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp

Rubens' Baroque bursts with energy and pathos from the powerful diagonals, intense expressions, and dramatic light. Jesus is built like a classical ideal and the other figures struggle with titanic force like Michelangelo's slaves. But the details are so real - the flesh and foliage especially. That's the Northern component. Rubens just blends it all so well into a new Baroque vision. It's easier to show than tell...

Scale is a big part of the Baroque rhetorical toolbox. The Cerasi Chapel is pretty intimate - that's why its message is so inclusive and personal. But the big ceiling frescos and church facades get a lot of power from overwhelming size. Alterpieces can be huge too. Here's The Raising of the Cross with its wings open in its natural habitat. It's a big painitng.

The Northern realist side of Rubens let him bring traditional genre subjects to life. This one is a study of light effects and expression without any grander significance.

Peter Paul Rubens, Old Woman and Boy with Candles, between 1616 and 1617, oil on panel, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis

It's that fresh living energy that ties a lot of different versions of Baroque together. Without a conscious Art! ideology or program, any useful stylistic classification has to rely on general tendencies.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Three Graces, from 1630 until 1635, oil on panel, Museo del Prado

Any look at Rubens has to address the famous fatties. We assume it has to do with beauty standards reflecting signs of prosperity - only the rich could get fat. Part of it is probably Rubens' interest in simulating fleshy textures. Part of it is probably a Rubens thing. That's all we've got, but it's a big enough part of his work that we had to mention it. 

The theme is humanistic. And the rest of it - the landscape, flowers, and other stuff - are exquisite.

Rubens combined his skills and knowledge in huge allegorical paintings that flattered royals. His Marie de' Medici Cycle is probably the best example. It was painted for the widowed Florentine Queen of France to pump up her reputation in the snake pit of French politics. It consists of 24 thirteen foot high paintings glorifying Marie's life. Because her life was underwhelming and her rule mediocre, Rubens had to compensate with energy and allegories.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Presentation of the Portrait of Marie de’ Medici, 1622–25, oil on canvas, Louvre, Paris

For example. King Henry IV was disinterested in negotiations around his marriage and was introduced to her by an exchange of portraits. Hardly the stuff of legend. Rubens transforms it with a host of allusions. The personification of France stangs with the king, admiringly at her new queen. Hymen, god of marriage, presents the portrait, and Jupiter and Juno, royal couple of Olympus, smile down. Cupids move the king's weapons as the impact of Marie sweeps away all other thoughts. 

The language of classical allegory turns a depressing courtship into destiny.

Scale again. The Medici Cycle in the Louvre today.

The same approach leant itself to huge allegorical religious projects as well. His Triumph of the Eucharist series was a set of tapestry designs for the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia. Here's one of the set - a classical triumph bursting with energy and crowded with allegory and personification. Note the papal crown on the central personification. It's the counter-Reformation.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Victory of Truth over Heresy, about 1622-1625, oil on panel, Prado, Madrid

The technique is the same as the Acts of the Apostles tapestries in the Raphael post. The weavers would take the life-size design cartoon and replicate it in textile. The image loses some of subtlety and is reversed, but still looks incredible.

The Victory of Truth over Heresy, tapestry woven in Brussels by Jan Raes I, Jacob Genbels II, and Jacob Fobert after designs by Peter Paul Rubens, 1626-1633, wool and silk, Patrimonio Nacional, Monasterio de las Descalzas Reales

Rubens built up a huge artistic workshop that could churn out paintings to his design. The result is a vast body of work - too much to cover in a post. So we'll finish with a few more examples of his range to give readers some sense of his achievements.

Diplomacy was also a major part of Rubens career - his art gave him unique access to monarchy, and his aristocratic experiences influenced his art. This allegory is a warning against reigniting the Wars of Religion. When Minerva - goddess of war and wisdom - holds back Mars - total war - Venus flourishes with love, bamily, and fecundity. 

Peter Paul Rubens, Minerva Protects Pax from Mars (Peace and War), 1629-30, oil on canvas,  National Gallery, London

By the end of the 1630s, the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) was raging and Rubens' dreams of peace abandoned. He would retire from public life and spend his final days on a country estate with his young second wife. He also painted a sort of sequel to Peace and War that uses the same language to represent the consequences.

Peter Paul Rubens, Consequences of War, 1637–38, oil on canvas, Palazzo Pitti, Florence

The Fury Alekto unleashes Mars, with Pestilence and Famine in monstrous tow. Europe in black wails as Venus is unable to restrain the holocaust. The Thirty Years War was a horror show. Harmony with a broken lute represents the discord of war, a mother and family, Architecture with fallen tools, and Mars trampling books all allude to socio-cultural destruction. A skein of arrows representing Concord lie unbound. According to the link, Rubens wrote “war corrupts and disrupts and destroys everything” including “procreation and charity.”

In retirement, Rubens painted for pleasure. His luminous landscapes do depict his estate lands, but are full of light and movement that seems almost mythic. Another perfect synthesis of classic and northern traditions brought to vibrant life.

Peter Paul Rubens, An Autumn Landscape with a View of Het Steen in the Early Morning, around 1636, oil on oak, National Gallery, London

Those final years seem to have been legitimately happy - a withdrawal from a world gone mad despite his best efforts to his country estate with a new wife nearly 40 years his junior.

Rubens, Helena Fourment, and Their Son Frans, 1635, oil on wood

The lion in winter. His late paintings were done for his own interests, not his royal and ecclesiastic clients. They're unusually personal for the time.

Rubens' influence is profound. His fortunes suffer from the general post-Enlightenment rejection of the Baroque and its culture, but that's just part of it. His huge workshop with its divisions of labor transformed the business side of artistic production. His blazing color and flickering paint set a standard for that kind of expressive painting. When the French Academy split ideologically over whether line or color was more important, Rubens was the symbol of the second group.

There's direct influence on his contemporaries as well. This collaboration with a contemporary captures the fecundity of Creation on the eve of the Fall. Rubens painted the figures, while Bruegel did the rest.

Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder, The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (Genesis 3:4), around 1615, oil on panel, Mauritshuis

Rubens’ energetic, erudite history paintings and portraits defined a Baroque court style. His greatest student, Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641) spent many years as court painter to Charles I of England where he set a European aristocratic standard. He didn't have Rubens' sense for the grandiose, but the fluid expressive paint is similar. Work as a court artist took up mist of van Dyck's time, but he did paint some other subjects. The resemblence and difference from Rubens comes through in this myghological scene.

Anthony van Dyck, Cupid and Psyche, around 1638, oil on canvas, Royal Collection

It's the Stuart Court portraits that really made van Dyck's reputation. One of his more splendid ones - Charles I with M. de St-Antoine showing the king and his riding master - is up above. Here's one with his family at the time. His wife - Henrietta Maria - was the daughter of  Henri IV of France and Marie de Medici of the great art family and a major art supporter herself. His son would be the future Charles II.

Anthony van Dyck, Charles I and Henrietta Maria with their two eldest children, Prince Charles and Princess Mary, 1632, Royal collection

Anthony van Dyck, James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox, between 1633 and 1635, oil on canvas, Metropolitan Museum of Art

An example of van Dyck's many aristocratic portraits. A court artist traded creative freedom for financial security and a place in high society. Van Dyck was knighted and able to fraternize with the nobility.

That's enough for now. We'll look at the rest of the Baroque as a path to Logos in the next post. The level of techne in the service of rhetorical appeal is astonishing.

About that...

Pietro da Cortona, Allegory of Divine Providence and Barberini Power, 1633, fresco, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome