Progression

of Ar,s,c Styles:
Comparing Renaissance and Baroque

In his study Principles of Art History, Heinrich Wlfflin

distinguishes between Renaissance and Baroque style.
While acknowledging many national stylistic tendencies
which complicate any simple approach to the question of a
transition from Renaissance to Baroque style (for instance,
he notes the contrast between the more restless surfaces of
Flemish art compared to the relative stability and calm of
Dutch art), he also believes that it is possible to discern
general principles behind the development of style. He
proposes five contrasts to help describe the differences
between the two styles in question. These contrasts, or
oppositions, each relate to some important general
characteristics of how art works are organized. In each case,
the first term of the contrast is associated with Renaissance
style, the second with the Baroque. The contrasts are:

1. Linear vs. Painterly

Renaissance art tends to define forms with clear contours. Even given that the
development of chiaroscuro (light/dark contrasts) is a Renaissance phenomenon, the
use of light and dark in a Renaissance image generally does not interfere with the
viewers clear understanding of the boundaries of an object. As an example, Wlfflin
suggests Drers St. Jerome in His Study. Even though the artist has made great
use of lights and darks, the emphasis is still on the integrity of each form (object) in
the object and its distinctness. On the other hand, Baroque art, being more painterly,
defines masses rather than forms, and the Baroque artist is not concerned with
making sure that we know exactly where forms begin and end in space.
Rembrandts etching of St. Jerome helps to make the point: forms seem to dissolve
in light. The Baroque artist does not hesitate to create patterns of light and dark
which transgress the boundaries of objects.

2. Plane vs. Recession

While Renaissance art is oriented towards the flat plane, the surface of the picture
surface presented as parallel to the principle planes being represented, Baroque
art tends towards diagonal axes of movement which draw us into the picture and
distract us from the flatness of the picture plane.

3. Closed vs. Open

Renaissance art draws attention to its own rationality, to the clear horizontal and
vertical orientations (relating to the ideal of knowing exactly where objects are
located) of the image or constructed form. Baroque creations, in contrast, attempt
to hide their underlying structures. A Baroque copy of a Renaissance masterpiece
such as Raphaels Disputa will, quite characteristically, transform the symmetry of
the original into a marked asymmetry.

4. Multiplicity and Unity

In this oppositional pair, Wlfflin addresses the issue of how art works of each style
achieve effects of unity. He [somewhat confusingly?] distinguishes between
multiple unity (Renaissance style) and unified unity (Baroque style). By this he
means that the Renaissance artist presents a number of clearly identifiable parts
(articulated) which are subordinated to an overall arrangement or emphasis or
single effect. Leonardos Last Supper is one excellent example among many:
Within each group of apostles, each apostle is clearly defined; moreover, each group
of apostles is also distinct. However, each individual and all three groups are
subsumed or organized into a unified whole with the focal point of the composition
being Jesus head. Leonardo takes advantage of the privileged central position of
the picture, where viewers attention is naturally drawn. A Baroque artist will not
worry about maintaining the individual integrity of forms and parts, being instead
more concerned with achieving an overall effect. Often, this effect involves a strong
sense of movement, and in many Baroque art works, the viewer will distinguish a
specific figure only with difficulty, the much stronger visual impression being of the
overall swirl of dynamic motion.

5. Clearness and Unclearness

Wlfflin notes that for classic [Renaissance] art, all beauty meant exhaustive
revelation of the form; in baroque art, absolute clearness is obscured even where a
perfect rendering of facts is aimed at. The pictorial appearance no longer coincides
with the maximum of objective clearness, but evades it. The opposition between
clearness and unclearness may take many forms, and is obviously related to many
of the oppositional pairs already discsussed. That is, the Baroque tendency to
obscure forms in the painterly manner of presentation certainly leads to less
clearness. Other areas of representational style which are relevant include the use
of color. In this realm, Wlfflin notes that, while Renaissance artists such as
Leonardo knew of and observed the effects of colored reflections that is, realized
that the color of an object may depend upon the reflection of light from a nearby
colored surface onto that object he refrained from applying this knowledge to any
great extent in his paintings, as he felt that to do so would be to risk clarity. Baroque
artists, striving for a type of art in which, as Wlfflin argues, there is always an
unsolved remainder, did not hesitate to make greater use of such color effects. In
terms of spatial organization, as well, Baroque artists present ambigous situations
(e.g., pictures within pictures where the boundaries of each are not clearly
articulated, or where it is unclear, as some critics argue is the case with Velazquezs
Jesus in the House of Marth and Mary, whether we are looking at a mirror, a painted
image, or an opening in a wall).

In order to begin exploring Wolfflins ideas and testing them out for ourselves, lets
turn to a number of comparisons of Renaissance and Baroque paintings, with each
comparison involving paintings of the same subject matter or theme.