,"{,

ON THE EMERGENCEOF AESTHETICS

RichardWoodfield

Tnu cENTRALcoNcEnN of this article is to conrribute towards an under-

standing of the culrural conditions which led to the emergenceof aestherics.
This is not a topic which hasengagedthe foremost attenrion of aestheticians,
mainly bccause rhe study of cultural phenomcna extends beyond thc
disciplinary boundaries of contemporary philosophical aesthericsand also
becauscthere is an obvious diffcrence between identifying specific philo-
sophical issuesand asking why thcy should have arisen. An immediare
problem, whcn addressing tiris particular topic, is that of identifying a
criterion of demarcation.As rnany historiesof aestheticsstarrwith andquity,
while recognizing that aestheticsemerged as an autonomous philosophical
discipline in the eightcenth ccrttury, tlr.eremust needs be sonre difference
between ancient and modern attitudestowards those phenomena which are
now subjectsof aesrhericenquiry for the nodon of 'ernergence' to gain
sense.I will confine myself to the figurative arts, and will argue that rhe
emergenceof aestheticsin this sectorrestedupon radically changedviews of
the functional smtus of humanly created visual images. [t may be the case
that my argument extends frorn the figurative arts acrossto rhe other arts,
but a considerarionof rhar ropic is beyond the scopeof rhis arricle.
'On
In his scrninal paper, the Origins of "Aesthetic Disinterestedness"',
St oln i tzsra t ed:
'disinterestcdness'
I waltt to trace the origins of and to show rhat they are to be found
where tlre origins of tnodcrtr aesthctic theory are ro be found, viz., in eighreenrh-
ccntury Ilritish thought. They did not invent and never usc the words 'aeschetic'or
'aesthetics',
but ir is simply frivolous to allow this to decide who 'crcared' aesrheric
theory. Thc British were the first to envision the possibili of a philosophical discipline
ry ,
entbracing the srudy of all the arts, one which would be, moreover, autonomous,
becauseirs strbject-nratter is not explicable by any other disciplines. And the British
wcre the first ro act upon and realise this programme.
Thc argument of this papcr is that thc nrotive idea in their thinking was 'disinrer-
cstedness'.r

The argunent which Stolnitz used to support his caseis both rigorous and
sound, although it was misinterpretedby Saisselinin his paper 'Cricical
Rellccrionson the Origins of Modern Aesthetics'.2Stolnitz analysedthe way
in which thc concept of disinterestedness
becameoperarive in philosophical
discussions,
how ic transformedthe ternrsof earlier discussions and b...-.
furrdamentalto contelnporary notions of aesthctics.Stolnitz, paceSaisselin,
zr8 OF AISTHETICS
Oi.l TFIEEMERGENCE
nrade no attempt to account for the cuir,rral condidons under which the
'It
concept could have emerged, though he suggesredthat has its roots,
indeed, in contcmporary controversiesin erhics and religion, and only
gradually doesit take on the distinctly aestheticmeaning which we attach to
ic today'.3Saissclin's altcrnativesuggestionthat aesthetics emergedfrom thc
quarrel between the supporters of the Ancients and Moderns while being,
ro my rnind, morc pcrtincnt to a discussion of the cultural conditions for the
enrergenceof acsthctics,is vitiated by his failure to consider other, non-
lirerary, artistic devcloprnents.In his statement dlat in order fbr aesthetics
'art
ro emergc had to be defended frorn religious morality and religious
dogma' he was on the right track, and his arguffIent supports Stolnitz's;
'painting
but his srarcn-rcnr thar lived very wcll with religion, and the latrer
perhaps was more of an issue with literature' is very wide of the mark.
However imp.'e113trt the Querellemay have been, and it was important, its
importance recedeswhen we consider developmcnts in the history of the
visual arts during dre Renaissance and Reformation. There is a very strong
casefor arguing that the releaseof the visual image into an autonomous
world took preccdcnceover the Querelle.
An inrporrant fcatureof the Italian Renaissance was that it resultedin an
efiorescence of a specialist literature on the visual arm which was quite
'Western
difrerent in quality and kind from that which had existed in
Europe before.{ Its novelty was that, in terms of a literary fornrat, it treated
paiuting by imelf asan intcllectualactivity definedin termsofits relationswith
the artcs libcrales.sNo antique or medieval artist attempted a Ctttwnentarii,
as did Gliibcrti; rlo previous writer attempted a biography like Manetti's
Vita di Filippo di ScrBrunellesco and there was nodring previously comparable
ro Vasari's V'itede' piitecccllenti pittorietscultoriltaliani;the explanation
architetti,
for the prcvious absenceof this type of literatureis that before the Renaissance
painters and sculptors wcre regarded as rnanual workers. We know that
during rhe middle ages,and suspectthat in antiquity, there were technicai
manualson thc practiceof painring; but thesediffer substantiallyfrom the
types of treatisestemuring fronr Alberti's De pictura,the first Western art
theoreticaltext.
Alberri's Dc picturais particularly striking for its structuralsimilarity to
arlrique rreariseson literature; it marked a dramatic convergenceof interests
betrveena professionalhurnanist and practisirlg artists.6Alberti applied the
p_rinciplesof rheroric to the analysisof painting while, at the same time,
-"irrr.itring a strong interestin the ways in which the painted inrage created
'window
its el{ects.Hc rhouglit that a painting should operate as a otr to
'things
narurc', that it should strive to represent seen' and that it should
'please,
instruct and move'. In short he believed that a painting should
consritute arl extension of the phenomenal world, and that by its contents,
tcs istorid,it should affect human behaviour. He held that the artist should
 RICHARDWOODFIELD 2re

be likc rhe scienrist,optician or anatonrist,who had to examinethc appearance

of thc world, and should associate with writers, who had to study thc way in
which men's thoughc was exemplified in their behaviour; this was necessary
for a simularion of realiry and construction of a drama which would direct
and cnhanccthe conduct of life. It is well lcnown that his nrajor successoras
an art thcoreticianwas Leonardo da Vinci, who wrote:

paintinghasto do with naturalphilosophy.

rreatsof nroralphilosophy,
If p''og11r' If
pocrrydescribcs the workingsof the
the workingsof the mind, paintingconsiders
nrind as rcflectcd in thc nlovcrlrerlts of thc body. If poetry can terrify people by fictions
of hcll, painting can do as rnuch by sctting the sanrc things before the eye. Suppose the
pocr is scr against the painter ro represent beauty, tcrror, or a basc, trgly, monstrous
rhing, whatcvcr rhc fornrs lre nray in his way producc, thc paintcr wiil satisfy the more.
Have wc not scenpicturcs so closcly resernbling the actual thing that they have deceived
both nren and bcasts.?

Though Alberd had developeda thcory whereby the spectatorcould analyse

the corrtentsof the piccorial franre, Leonardo was his peer irl developing a
literary vocabulary which would rnatch the objectsand processes within the
freld of vision,Ebut both wcre conmitted to the doctrine that the propcr
task of arr was to simulate reality; neither fclt that the work of art had an
autonornouscxistencc,that it constituredim own world inherently separate
fronr reality.
Despite the cricicalself-consciousucss of Alberti and Leonardo, the general
funcriort of painting in quattrocento Florence and, by extension, the rest of
Europe was rnuclr the sane as it had been for millenia. Figurative images
constitutcd a phenomenal extension of the real world into the intangible
though cqually real world beyond; drcy carriedthe sameperceptualburden
as typically the photographic image does today.
The contcmporary phorographic image operatesasthe mediator between,
and document oe our own immediate environments and rh.osewhich we
regard as important, fascinatingor interesting.Tlre consciouslyconstructed
photographic image affectsour knowledge of the world, directs our beliefs
and behaviour, as well as afrording pleasure; the same is true of the pre-
modern usc of the figurative irnage. As we know that the photographic
image may be falsified, our criterion for accepting the authenticiry of a
particular irnage is based uporl notions of temporal and physiognomic
consisrcncy.In the pre-modern world, consistency was obmined by the
dorninance of verbal and visual tradition which emphasised,among other
things, the continuum bctwccn thc physicalworld and the world beyond;
ir only ncedcd thc tradidons to be shatteredfor the authenticity of the image
to be destroyed.Rur at the sarnetime, i{, by sheer interest in the nature of
thc image itsclf, thc spectator lost concern with what it represented,the
authenticity of the image would become marginal to its appreciation.
'phenomenal
Bchind the creation of a extension of the real world' lay a
}2O N THE EMERGENCE
OF AESTHETICS
colnmitnrcnt to tlr.enotion of the instrumentalefticacyof visual imagcry in
the developmentand enhancementof human life. FrancesYatcs haspointed
out rhat:
I n r n e d i c v a lt h c o r y , a s l a i d d o w n i n p a r t i c u l a r b y T h o n r a s A q u i n a s , n l a r l ' s n a r u r e i s s o
constituted that he cannot renrernber intellectual or spiritual conceprs save through
'Io
nraterial iuragcs. rnake hirn grasp an abstraction, such as thc vice of avarice, onc
tnust show hinr the intage of a nriser, periraps holding a bag of money, an avaricious
nran. To indicare to him an absrractionsuch as the virtue of charity, one nrust show hinr
an attractive hunran figurc, a wonran, exemplifying or exercising this virrue.
These arc very sirnple examples of the principle of teaching rnan about rhe intelli-
gibilia through rhe sensibilia
which is at thc root of medieval didactic art. To rnake man
fear and avoid the sinswhich lcad hirn to hell, one shows hirn hateful irnages of sins and
the grcacdoonr paintings or sculpturesof the LascJudgernentwith their countlcssfigures
of the danrncd. Or to lcad him towards paradise,one shows the glorious vision of the
lifc of thc blcsscdin hcavcn, rhe reward of virtue. The iuragination is allowed to forn
ruarcrial irrragcs,iruagcsfrorrr the world of sense,becauseit is only through such inrages
that nran can bc raught, and nradc to remenber, the higher intelligible trurhs.e

But, and rhis is a point drar Yates did not make, rhe efficacyof prc-modern
figurative arts rested uporl a particular psychological effect of their sub-
stitutionalnaturc.Thc principlc of substitutiorlhasbeenelaboratedat length
'the
by Gombrich ancl Bcrnhcimer;ro as the latter pointed out, function
nlosr akirl to rcpresclltationis not, as the semanticistssuppose,that of
signification,but thc rnuch ncglectedand little known one of substitutiorr'.rr
I{ as I believe, Bernheirner was correct, the difrerencebetween ancient and
nlodern approachcstowards the figurative arts lics in the way in which the
figurative imagc as substitutewas acceptedand appreciated.The figurative
arts were a potcrlt rlrcarrsof directing human conduct through a rc-ordering
of rncntal and physicalspacc.A nunrbcr of good storieswould illustrateche
pre-ntodcnl nlentaliry, but wc will have to rest conrcnt witl that of St.
Nilus, who recounted the miraculous rescueof two men who addressed
P r ay er sro s r. Pl a to :
Bothof tbernhadthcirpraycrsheard,thefachcr
in hiscaveon thenrountain,
thesonin
andbchold,our Platosuddenly
captivity, appearedon horsebackbeforetheyoungman
who was then awake, bringing along another horse withouc a rider. The young man
recognized the Saint becausehe had often seen his portrair on irnages. Straightaway
[Plato] ordered hirrr ro arisc from among all rhe other [captives], and to mount the
horsc; his fcrtcrs fcll apart like a spider's web, and he alone was dclivered b1, virtue of
h i sp r a y e r . . . . 1 2

For us, this story's interestlies not in the ancientexisterlceof miraclesbut

in a mutual interaction of fantasy,figurarive irnage and reality. St. Nilus
said that th.eyoung man recognizedPlato frorn his picture; this is significant
restimony to the perceptual and ontological statusof the figurative arts in
the pre-modern world; either they were treated as authentic representations
or as lies. Neither thc visual products of the imagination nor their concrete
 RICHARD WOODFIELD z2L

ernbodirncntin thc frgurativc arts wcrc assigncdthe statusof .fction as we

undcrstandit roday. Given widcsprcadbclicf in the authenticity of visions
and rhe cfticacy of image-rnagic, chc viability of a constructive notion of
it ll
ficion wasfundarncnrallyunc{ernrined. Tlrc figurativeartspresenredpicturcs rt
it
of realirywhich could bc acccptcdesright or wrong, but never asneither.The
norion of ficrion prved thc way for .-lisintercsrcd inrerest,but it did not
bccomc a subjcctfor scriouscnquiry until thc ciglrtecnthcentury, especially
in the wrirings of Addison and Burkc. Bcfore acstheticscould emerge, the
it
social function of art had to change; thc type of srory rcpreserltedby St.
Nilus would have to losc its crcdibility and the medieval link betweetr
intelligibiliaand sursibilia would havc to bc broken or reducedto play.
Thc figurativc arts playcd thc saurc insrrunrcntalrole in men's public
il
tti
il
r!
!i
and privatc livcs it quattrocurro Florenccas they had before; the confusion of tl
rcaliricswas asstrollg as cvcr. lJut ic is wcll known that in Florcncea rnajor it ll
change occurred affccring thc social st:rtusof rhe artist and the terms of *i
3 il
artistic patroltagc.r Through thc quottlocetfi(), patrotrs' intercsts in an il
;l
li
arrisricproclucrshiftcd fronr concerrl with its quality, as a picce of work- l l
il
marrslrip,ro its characteras a displey of mcntal ingcnuity; this change in !l
stylc of patrotlagcwas givctr addcd inrpctus by noti,rtrsof artistic Progrcss ll
sharcdby artistsand profcssionalhumanists.raThe notion of works of rrt ti
t
I
as dinronstraziorti canle to a hcad in thc cinrytccctrto with thc phenomcnon
II
known as Manncrisrn,rband it has been argued by fie Marxist historian
Hauscr,that rl:cchangcdcornnrodityfunctionof art,initiatedin the quattrocento
and rcalizcdin Manttcrisnr,nrarkedrhc elnergcnceof modern art.ls
'We
have
i i
t
alreaclynoted thet for Albcrri and Lconardo, two primc represencatives of I
t

.ltnttrlcctttoFlorcncinccuhurc, although drc figurative arts werc to be rc- i

II
spccted for their intcllcctual characrcr they, nevcrthcless,corlstituted an
I
cxrcnsionof thc pl'renonrcnal world. Wc lrlust rlow examine the claim that i
i
\,lanncrisrncrcatcda brcak bcrwccn thc phcnomenalworlds of art and the
i
spccrator,producing the attitude of disintercstcdintercst.
Mannerisnr is still a subjcct of heated debaceamongst art historians,
dcspite rhc wealth of literaturc published on it in the past five decades.
Sonre historians havc seen Mamerisnr as constituting a rctreat from the
'objecrive
reality' of the high Renaissancc into a subjectiveforrn of mystic-
rsrn, cmbodying a state of alienation from rhe realiriesof mundane life;
ochcrshavc sccnir as encapsulating norions of refinenrentand virtucsity, in
;n appcalro the visualinterestsof a learneddlite of patrons; theserwo types
,rf c'xplanationare nor necessarily mutually exclusive.Whether or not there
\\'asa profound spiritual crisisafter the Sackof Rome, which is doubtful, it is
:rever[heless true that mysticismwasstill presentand that it wasgiverrfashion-
by the brand of Neoplatonism which had been forged by Marsilio
"bility
Frcinoand his circle in Florencein the quiltrocentcr.tT Although Ficino never
Eavculuch considerationto the visualarrs,it is clearfrom his writings thacthe
,)) ON THE EMERGENCEOF AESTHETICS

figurative imagc could excrcisea powerful contemplativefunction irr placing

rhe specratorin contact with the divine world;rs for Ficino, the universe
operated by a hierarchic scriesof analogic emanationsfrorn God regulared
by magical ties. Whilc hc subscribedto the doctrine of different levelsof
pcrception,as did his mysticalpredecessors,re he, like them, believedin their
ultinratcintcrrelation.If any Mamerist art could be construedasernbodying
rnysticalinclinarions,this would have bcen quicein keepingwith fashionable
inrercstsin Neoplatotrism.Although therc was some talk by Mannerist
-'new
rheorcticiansof ihc creating worlds', those ncw worlds were
"rtist
intended ro bcar a dircct orrtologicalrelationshipto our own; it is striking
tlrat Lorn^zza's Trnttato dell'Artc della Pitnra, which Schlosscrdescribedas
Manncristrr's't,('rallibbia', was castwithin thc rnould of hcrmeric magic.2o
As a forrn of artistic virtuosity Mannerism appcalcdto spectators'scnseof
ingcnuity; ncithcr artist nor spectatorwould havc made scnse,however, of
rhc trorion thar a propcr rcsponseto art was one of disintcrestcdintcrest.
Virtuosity was still a garnc which could be played within the traditional
'a
fraurcwork of the crcarion of phenomenalextensionof the real world'.
'rational
We are, pcrhaps,too caught up with the classicist nonn of a con-
structionof spacc'to crcdit the dramaricefficacyof Manneristimagcsand too
historicistto apprcciatethe senseof continuity and literary tradition which
lay behind thc'novc'lty' of Manneristsubject'.While it may be grantedthat
irr tlre ciltquccuttothc artist emerged as a spccially gifted person, whosc
creatiorlscould be regarded as intellectually rewarding and placed on a
par with thosc of the writcr, there is limle evidenceto show that perceptual
habits had cliangcd and that the spectatordid not fuse his intcrcsts in the
figurativc irnaqc wirh thc ficritious and powerful world of his irnagination.
Manncrisrart, wirh its emphasison rhe appreciationof artisticvirtuosity, was
important for the impetus which it gave to a critical approachto.^'ardsthe
figurativc arts,but a more powerful and traumaticphenornenonwas needed
for thc dccachcdspectatorto cornc into being. It is historicallyinrportanrchat
at thc sanlerinre that Mannerist works of arc were growing in popularity
thc Imlian church was engagedin a counter-refornrmovelnent as a reaction
to the Protcstanrrefornration.
Thc Protestantreformatioll was accompaniedby a wave of destructionof
Christiandcvocionalobjectswhich had, hitherto, beenunknown in Western
Europc and only rnatchcdby the much earlier activiticso[ rhe Byzantine
iconoclasts.ziThc motives of the Protestanticonoclasrswere many and
varied, cxtending fronr piety, through hostiliry to papal insrirurions,ro
unadulteratedgrccd; the intention lay in an attack on superstitionand a
preoccupationwith rhe world of senseto the neglectoftrue piety. Thc leading
Prorcstant theologiatts,whatever their particular doctrinal differencesmay
have been, were uniccd in their attack on idolatry; they were parricularly
critical of the argumentswhich had traditionally been'usedin^defenceof
 RICHARD V/OODFIELD zz3

Christian figurative art. Contrary to St. Gregory,2z they rnaintained thar

visual irnagery could not, of itseld,instruct and that if it were to be tolerated
at all, it should take secondplaceto the study of the'Word of God asrevealed
in the Ilible. Contrary to the decisionsof che SecondCouncil of Nicaea,z3
they werc noc prepared to acccpt any form of vcneration of religious art
and regardcd the distinction bccweertlatria and douliaas frurctionally mean-
inglcss. Contrary to late mcdicval devotional practice,2arhey were not
prcparcd to accepr art's inspirational function, but regarded images as
matcrially corrupt drrough being a product of sense,resultingin undesirable
atrthropourorphisrn.For thc Protestants,an unbridgeablegap lay between
the world of rnan and rhc world of God, and the constructionand venerarion
of visualinragcryrcpreser)tcd an unwonrcd attenlpt to brcachthat gap which
constitutcdtalscbclief. Protcstantisrnwas, inidally, responsiblefor the dis-
'phcnomenal
ruption of figurative art's function as a cxtension of the real
world'. Whcn icotroclastsdid not physically destroy works of arr, they
shatter.-dnrcn'sbclicfsabout thcm by emphasizingtheir falsiry and lack of
inhcrctttu tilir y ; inr agc sc o u l d r)o r b c ma d e o f th e u n k n ow n and they w ere
redundanr as mediators.The Protestantattack on images was integrally
couttcctedwirh a decline in belief in magic in general and image-magic in
particular.25
In dircct responseto Protestanticonoclasm,the C<luncil of Trent re-
af ilrn rc.lrh e ut ilit y of f igu ra ti v ea rt:

-l'hc
holv council comnrands . . . thar thc images of Christ, of thc Virgin Mother of
God, and of rhe othcr saints are to be placed and retained especially in rhe churches,
and that duc honour and vcneration is to be given thenr; not, however, that any diviniry
or virtuc is bclicvcd to bc in thcnr by reasorlof which they arc to be venerared, or that
sourcrhitrgis to be askcd of thcnr, or that trust is to be placcd in them, as was done of old
b1'thc Gcntiles who placcd their hopc in idols; bur becauscthe honour whjch is shown
rhcnr is rcfcrred to the prototypcs wlrich thcy rcpresent,so that by nreansof rhe inragcs
which we kiss arrd beforc whiclr wc uncovcr thc head and prostrate ourselves,we adore
Chrisr and vctrcratc thc saints whose likcncss rhcv bcar. Tliat is whar was defincd by
the dccrccs of thc Councils, espccially the Sccond Councrl of Nicaea, againsr the
opponcnts of inrages.20

In thc inrcrestof rnaintainingbelicf in chedivinc and intercessoryorcier,rhe

Courcil inrimated a need for an affcctive relacion berween image and
sPectator;the respotrse of suchconccrnedclcricsasthe Cardinal Paleottiwas
to call for a fornt of imagery which would make a direct emorional impacr
on the spectator.2?It is likely that the implementation of the Courrcil's
decreeadversely affected patrorlage of Manncrist art within dre milieu of
the Church as patrons were inclined to be antipathetic to the exerciseof
arristic liccnce in rhe intcrprctation of religious rhemes, both in terms of
subjcct-nrarrerand style. Itt terms of habits of patronage,a sharp division
occurrcdbetweenpaintingswhich were appropriarelysecularand religious;
?z+ ON THE EMERGENCE
OF AESTFIETICS
coruequently,a much nrore rigorousscnseofhistory emergedand,along with
it, a changein attitude towards cosmologicalspace.
ltalian Catholicswere not unafrectedby the literary warfare which formed
an inregral part clf the Rcformation. In particular, nrany leading Catholic
intcllectualswere influencedby the views of Erasmus,even thotrgh he suffered
Erasmuslauncheda scathingattack on rhe popular
in the handsof thc Inde**.28
misuse of imagcs, but he also laid bare the origins of Christian art in its
assimilationof paganisrn,implicitly criticizing the practiceof ltalian artists:
And if someonc were to adorn our churches with statuessirnilar to those with which
Lysippus once adorned the temples of the gods, would you say rhat he is similar to
Lysippus?-No.-W'hy not?-Because the symbols would not correspond to the
things synrbolized. I would say rhe same if somebody were ro painr a donkey in the
guise of a buffalo or a hawk in the guise of a cuckoo, even if he had otherwise expendcd
the greatestcare and artistry upon that panel.2e

If the artistsof the Renaissancehad happily producedrnythologicalpaintings,

knowing thar they would be subjcctto Christian allegorization,they could
now tre accusedof producing something orher dran Christian paintings,
and thcir lnotives could be found suspect. More importantly, Erasmus
helpcd shatterdre traditional fabric of visual imagcry by drawing atrention
to, what may be regardedwith hindsight, as a perversionof thought. From
one point of view, the history of medieval and renaissancc arr may be re-
grrdcd as thc history of chc use,and misuse,of classical art which provided
both sryleand content for later images.30 Thanks to the work of rhe Warburg
lnstitutc,we arenow in a positionto begin to definethc classicalcontribution
to the shapeof thc medievaland renaissancc universe,a univcrsewhich was
not simply inhabitcd by God, but by the gods as well as a host of demons.
The philosophyof Neoplatonisrn,which opcraredasthe mainscayofesoteric
Mannerist art and reflecteda renaissance commitment to the unity of antique
experience,came under the fire of criticsof a magical universe.Incellectuals
may well have begun to wonder what they were looking at when they saw
classicalpersonages enteringChristianpaintings,and may well havebegun to
difrerentiate between levels of mythical, historical and actual experience.
Despite tl'reangstof intellectuals,artistsworked on.
I would tend to agree wirh Boschloo3l in seeingthe countcr-reformation
'Reform
as rhe stimulant to the of Painting' initiated by AruribaleCarracci,
so laudedby Bcllori.3z The declineof Mannerismdid not resultin a decline
in the appreciationof artisticvirtuosity; indeed quite the reversehappened;
thc birrh of caricature,one of Annibaie'slastingachievements, nrarked the
emergenccof a new form ofscnsibilityand a radicallynew approachtowards
virtuosity among the type of culrivateddlite that had encouragcdMannerism.
The relationship between Annibale's stylistic revolution and his invcntion
of caricaturehas yet to be examined, but Gombrich and Kris have already I

pointed out that:

I
t
I
I
 RICFIARDWOODFIELD zzs
tt must come as a surprise evcn to his admirers that the master ofsuch sublime
and classical
picruresshould at the same tinre have bcen responsiblefor the invention not
'caricarure'. only of the
art but of the very word Carracci irirnself is credited with a wirry and clever
defence of rhis activiry of his.'ls not the caricaturisr'stask', he is reported
'cxaccly r'o have said,
the same as the classicalartist's? Borh see the lasting truth benearh
the surface
of nlerc outward aPPearance.Both try- to help nature
its plan. Th" on. ,,r"y
strive to visualise the perfect fonn and to r.ilise it in "."o-"plirh
his work, the orher ro grasp th;
perfect dcfornriry, and thus reveal the very esscnccofa personality.
A good caricature,
like every work of arr, is r'ore rrue ro life rhan reality iiself.'rt

Taken togerherwirh rheir obscrvationthat for the ernergence

of the caricarure
to occur

the picrorial rcpresentationhad to be removed frorn the sphcre where

irnage srimulatcs
actiott. Oncc the artist's prerogativc as a dreamer of dreams was asserredihe
sophisti-
cated arr lovcr of the sevcnteenthcentury would be flartered rather
than hurt ro look
at his countenance in the distorting mirror of rhe great artist's rnocking
mind,a{

it becorncsclcar that therc was a rnajor revolurion in responses to the figur-

ativc arts itr dtc cinquecuttl.Whcn Erasnrusdisapprov.i of realisric
,.1..-
senratiollsof hcavertand hcll, down ro rhe lasr-ietail, as if t6e artist 'had
dwch thcrc for nlatry ycars',35 hc clearly had in mipcl a criterion of authen-
ricity which would dclinrit areasof appropriateness in pictorial representa-
tion. Givcn a situationwherc the bo,rndsof .uth.rrticity were *"rk.d
our,
arrclappropriatercsPotlscs-to particularimagesbccamei"t.r,1ir.ed by sociai
con\/entiorl,the crcativc function of thc .rrirr', irnagination could
become
apprcciarcd. tselloricould apprcciatcAnnibalc Carraccisince]rewas clearthat
Annibalc did not Portray the acrual(as did Caravaggio)or the fantastic
(as
did Giuseppe d'Arpino, and rhe Mannerists)bur Ih". id..l, which
was a
product of his arristic inragination linkccl to a clear undcrsranding
- i of t6e
b o u n d sof ar r .
it nor likely that the ProtcstanrReformation by imelf broug6r about
,.1, a
disintercsrcditrtercsrin works of.arr. Although Erasmus,fo, .*""rrrple,
was
highly criricalof thc ytlt in which visuali-r!e, were used,by rhe
conl'ron
hcrd in particular,hc did nor havc the sanrescfsibility to*"rd,
the figurative
arts as thc lralian Patrollswho nurtured Mannerisrn.Neirher is it
liliely that
Matitrcrisnr,of itsclt, would have led to a disinterestccl interestin works of
art; whethcr or llot the Matrneristwas a 'dreamer of dreams',
he believed
irt th c u l tit t r at er ealit y o f h i s d re a m w o rl d . Bu t i t ma y be argued
that pro-
testantisru crcatcd.tlic.sctting 'sophisticated
for the art iover', i"irl, his reper-
toirc of skillsin visualanalysis,t-obr.rk loosefrom beliefsip
r6e fu'ctional
efiicacyof works art, capitaiisingon notions of artistic creariviry forged
9f
by thc thcoristsof Malurciis'r.36Ii rnry secrnsrrangcthar a ,opdirti..i.d
Italian Ro'ra' catholic dlite of p.r.o,ri shourclhr.,,r".becn
so .ff..t.d by
Protcsrantistnas to acc_ept rhe norion of art's ficrionaliry, but t6is was a
situatiorlforccd upott rhcnr by rhc Counter-Rcformatio,i,
by irs insisrence
22{; ON THE EMERGENCE
OF AESTHETICS
:n a fundalnentalchangein cultural values.The patronsenjoyedthe exercise
ot'artisric skill, inrplicit in Mannerism, and this was transformedby a rigid
separatiorr of rcligiousart, which shouldafiGccbehaviourin ways determined
by the Council of Trent, and sccularart, which becamethe provinceof sheer
enjoyment; such a separationdid not exist in the quattrocento.
As a general social phenomenon ancient beliefsin image-rnagicwcre fast
'a
declining in thc cinquccento and with them the belief that art consrituted
phenomenalextensionof thc real world'. The mystical world of the quat-
where it was bclicved that the artist simply extendedthe domain
trocettttt,
of the real world to incorporatethe divine, gave way to the criticalworld of
dte cinquecettto, where Protestants subjectedthe existenceof the divinc world
to scverc scrutiny. Thc grcat Baroque ceiling paintings of the seicento
constitutcda last-ditchstandon thc part of the Catholic Church to capture
thc public's inraginationwith visiorrsof heaven,and ir was scif-consciously
dr anr ati c ;i n th i s c o n n e c ti o nR u b e n s' sremarksare apposi te:
O r t o V e n i u s o f t e n u s c d t o s a y t o u s : l e t y o u r c o n r p o s i t i o n sb c i n a c c o r d a n c ew i t h
c u s t o n r sa n d t h c t i n r c s , . . . i n r i c a t ci n t h i s r e s p e c t r a g c d y , w h i c h i s t h c s i s t c ro f p a i n t i n g .
He would also say that the ainr of painting is at once to enlighten the nrind and delude
the eyes,and that this illusion which is causedin the eyesis basedon their very function-
ing; the eyes thenrsclvcshave learnt how to be deceived.3t

Rubens'ssenscof artistic deceptionwas not novel, as readersof Plato and

Augustine well know, but what was new was his senseof the necessityof
deceptionand thc boundsof fictionality;he could play the illusionisticgame
with thc consentof his patlons,becausethey knew what was rcal and wirat
was nor-oniy rhc hoi poloi could be deceived,and was hc not a Catholic
diplonrat?
The relcaseof arr fronr its phenomenal bondage to the divine world
paved the way for the emergenceof aesthetics as a philosophicaldiscipline
Englandand Gernlany.But an accoul)tof the
in the honrcsof Prorcstarltisnr,
ways in which thc artisricand theologicalissucsgeneratedby the cinquccanto
becanrcabsorbcdinto philosophicalliteratureandresultedin an autonomous
province of inrellectualcnquiry will have to be lcft to another occasion.

REFERENCES
I 6 Sec M. Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators
Journal oJ'Ae*hcticsand Art Criticisn XX
( r 9 6 r ) ,p p . I 3 I - 2 . (tqzt).
2 British ? I. A. Richter, ed., Selections
Joumal oI Aestheticsa (r96a). from the
s S t o l n i t z ,o p . c i t . , p . I 3 2 . Notebools of l*onordo da Vitrci (tqSq),
a See
J. Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura P. 2OO.
artistica( r q6+). 8 SeeV. P. Zubov, Leonardoda Vinci (1968),
6 SeeP. O. Kristcller, 'The Modern System
PP.7s4.
of the Arrs',Journal of the Hisrory of ldeas e F. Yates,'BrokenImages',New York
XII (re5r) and XIII (re5z). ReviewoJ'Books,
zrfry $974),p. rl.
 RICHARDWOODFIELD 141

r0 E. H. Gonrbrich, 'Meditations on a Hobby 2' SeeE. Martin, A Historyof the lcono-

J.
Horse or the Roots of Artistic Form', in claticControversy (t gto).
Meditations on a Hohby Horse (1963), and ?{ SeeS. Ringbom, Iconto Narrative (rq6S).
R. Bcrnheirner, Tlre Nature of fuprcscn- 26Sce K. Thomas, Religionand the Decline
tatiou (r96t). of Magic (rqzr) and also D. P. Walker,
rr Bernhcimer, op. cit., pp. z4-5. The Declineof Hell (tq6l).
r2 C. Mango, cd., Tfu Art of the Byzantine z0R. Klein and H. Zemer, eds.,Italian Art
E m p i r ej r 2 - 1 4 5 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ,p . 4 o . t 5 o o - t 6 o op, . I z o .
rs See M. Baxandzll, Painting and Experience 2?SeeA. W. A. Boschloo,fumibaleCarracci
in FiJtecnth Century ltaly (tglt), and in Bologna:Visible Realityin ,4tt afterthe
D. S. Chanrbcrs, ed., Patronsand Artists Councilof Trent,z vols.(tpZ+).
in the Italian Renaissance (tqZo). ?8Seefor exarnpleD. Freedberg,
Johannes
r{ See E. H. Gombrich, 'The Renaissance Molanus on Provocative Paintings',
Conccption of Artistic Progress and its Journol of the Warburg and Courtauld
Conscqucnces',in Norur and Form $966). Institutcs,:+ (r97r), pp. z3z ff.
16 SeeJ. Shcarnran,Mdwrcrism 20E. Panofsky, 'Erasrnusand the Visual
1967).
rc A, Hauscr, Dtr Mauierisnnts(r96a). Arrs',JWCI, 3z $969), p. 2rJ.
r? See E. Panofsky, 'The Ncoplatonic soE. Panofsky,Rcnoissance and Renascurces
'fhe
Movcnrcnt in Florcnce and North ltaly' in WestcrnArt (t965), *d J. Seznec,
irr Srrdirs in lconttloQy(lq6Z). Suruivalof thcPaganCods(tqSt).
r s S e eE . H . G o m b r i c h , ' B o c i c c l l i ' s M y t h o -
" Boschloo,op. cit.
logies: A Study in the Neo-Platonrc s2G. P. Bellori, The Liues tf Annibale&
Synrbolisnr of his Circlc', in Synbolic Agostitro Carraui,trans.C. Enggass, (r968),
lmages 0gzz). PP'J-6'
t'E.g. St. Bonaventura, Ilincrarium Mcntis s! E. H. Gorrrbrichand E. Kns, Caricature
ad Dewn. (rq+o),pp. ro-r2.
20 G. M. Ackernran, The Structure tJ 3{ E. Kris (in collaboration with E. H.
'Tbe
Lonnzzo's Treatiseon Paintinp(I96a)and Gornbrich), Principlesof Caricature'
R. Klein, "'L€s scpt gouverncurs de I'art" in PsyclrcaualyticExplorationsittArt $g74),
selon Lornazzo', in La forme ct I'inttlligible P. 2o2.
(rqzo). soE. Panofsky, 'Erasmus and the Visual
2r Scc Arts',p. 2o9.
J. Phillips, The Rtfonuation of Innges
'Refornlation '6 SecE. Pmofsky,Idea,trans.
lgZi and and Counter- J. J. S. Peake,
l\eforrrration' in Encyclopcdia of World (r968) and E. S. Barelli, Teoricie striuori
Art, vol. XI (1966). d'artetra nnnicrismoe barocco(r966).
22Lettcr to l-)ishop Scrcnus of Marscille. 3?P. I\ubcns,Legons, ed. Broussart, (r858),
P.I19.