Leonardo
da Vinci Society Newsletter
editor: Francis
Ames-Lewis
Issue
15, November 1999
Recent
and forthcoming events
Year
2000 Annual Lecture
The SocietyÕs Year 2000 lecture will be given
by Professor Pietro Marani (Politecnico di Milano), formerly Soprintendente
delle Belle Arti for Lombardy and co-Director of the programme of conservation
on LeonardoÕs Last Supper in the Refectory of
Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. The lecture, entitled ÔLeonardoÕs Last
Supper: the Restoration and the New FindingsÕ, will
be given in association with the National Gallery, in the GalleryÕs Sainsbury
Wing lecture theatre, on Wednesday 17 May 2000, at 6.00 pm. In the SocietyÕs
Annual Lecture in 1989, held at the Italian Cultural Institute, Dr Marani gave
a progress report on the condition of the mural that had revealed the need for
conservation, what had up to that time been done, and the new information about
LeonardoÕs work that was beginning to be revealed. Now that the conservation
campaign has been completed, Professor Marani will review the whole programme
and point out the importance of what has been revealed for our understanding of
the art of Leonardo da Vinci.
Leonardesque
News
The Last
Supper newly
conserved
Your editor writes: Despite the intense public demand for the opportunity to see the Last
Supper in its cleaned state, I was fortunate enough
in July to be able to visit the Refectory and to study the mural. The results
of the conservation campaign are, it must be said, somewhat mixed. In my view,
however, the benefits of the removal of many centuries of later repainting and
of the revelation of what remains of LeonardoÕs original work more than outweigh the disadvantages created by the extensive
losses. The process of ÔintegrationÕ Ñ of watercolour ÔinfillingÕ of areas of
loss with easily removable, light-toned pigments Ñ has left many areas very
light in tonality (contrary to the effects that Leonardo is likely to have
sought), and this increases the overall tonal blondness of the whole mural.
This intervention on the part of the conservators is of course deliberately
ÔtactfulÕ, respecting as it does the need to ensure that the areas of
LeonardoÕs original paint are readily distinguishable from the infilling. It
cannot therefore vary in tone according to the chiaroscuro modelling by which
Leonardo would originally have defined the forms.
It
is in the draperies in poarticular where much of LeonardoÕs paint surface has
been lost. The formerly olive-green robe of St James the Great, for example, is
now disconcertingly blank: the lack of modelling and of tonal variation in this
area makes it difficult to understand the anatomical bases of his hand
gestures. Another area left rather stridently high-key through loss of paint is
the robe of St James the Less (second from the left) which contrasts with the
better preserved and deeply shadowed dark green worn by St Bartholomew at the
left-hand end. This saintÕs draperies offer a particularly good idea of the
tonal richness that LeonardoÕs original paint surface may have possessed. Much
of the vibrant richness of the blues Ñ perhaps ultramarine? Ñ on St PeterÕs
right sleeve and on ChristÕs mantle, for example, has also be lost, so that the
contrast with the lighter, less resonant blue Ñ perhaps azurite? Ñ of JudasÕ
robe is less telling than Leonardo probably intended it to be.
Broad
areas of the draperies therefore show heavy losses of paint, resulting both in
loss of legibility of fold forms and underlying anatomical forms, and in areas
of watercolour ÔintegrationÕ that are tonally lighter than Leonardo would have
left them. But fine details have survived much better under the centuries of
overpaint. The metal plates and bowls, glass tumblers and carafes, and bread
and other consumables, and the complex pattern embroidered into the
freshly-ironed tablecloth, show LeonardoÕs sure sense of precision both in
representing materials and still-life details, and textures and in the
placement of highlights to clarify both shapes and textures. The lunettes, not
previously visible at all, now reveal the rich naturalism of LeonbardoÕs
treatmetn of leaves, fruit and flowers.
Most
impressive of all, however, are the flesh parts, which have survived as much as
the draperies have deteriorated. Almost all of the apostlesÕ hands are
completely legible, and the meanings of the all-important hand gestures, shorn
of their bluntening repaints, are more readily intelligible than before. Most
of the heads, too, are well preserved: only St Simon, at the very right-hand
end, preserves so little definition of feature as not to be comprehensible.
Removal of distorting repaint has clarified LeonardoÕs intentions with regard
to facial features, proportions and emotional expressions in response to
ChristÕs words. Here the losses to LeonardoÕs original paint surface are
relatively low: in heads like that of St Philip (fourth from the right) some
90% of LeonardoÕs surface survives. If the losses elsewhere have led to loss of
legibility and tonal contrast, more is now revealed to us than most thought
possible at the outset of the conservation campaign of LeonardoÕs expressive
intentions and achievement. And it is these, of course, that are more crucial
than any other factors to the historical importance and artistic value of the Last
Supper.
Leonardo da Vinci drawings in the National GalleryÕs Renaissance Florence: The Art of the 1470s exhibition
A group of early
drawings by Leonardo da Vinci is included in the beautiful and thoughtfully
presented exhibition to be seen at the National Gallery until 16 January 2000.
These drawings date from the time he spent as an assistant in Andrea del
VerrocchioÕs workshop, and from his period as an independent master in Florence
before his move to Milan in the early 1480s. They include the British MuseumÕs
refined silverpoint Head of a Warrior, tellingly
compared with other derivations from VerrocchioÕs reliefs of Alexander and Darius given by Lorenzo the
Magnificent to King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, two pen and ink sheets of
studies for a ÔMadonna and Child with a CatÕ composition, two of the early cast
drapery studies in brush on linen, and the celebrated study at Windsor Castle
of Hands, made in connection with the Portrait
of Ginevra deÕ Benci. Amongst many other
achievements, this exhibition offers the visitor an unusual insight into
LeonardoÕs activity as an apprentice, and the links between his work and that
of his fellow assistants in VerrocchioÕs workshop. It is a highly important
exhibition for all interested in Florentine art in the halcyon decade of the
1470s, and in LeonardoÕs artistic origins in particular.
An important new publication on Leonardo da Vinci
Robert Zwijnenberg,
The Writings and Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. Order and Chaos in Early
Modern Thought. Translated by Caroline A. van Eck.
Cambridge (Cambridge University Press), 1999. ISBN 0-521-63239-0.
Despite (or perhaps
because of) their disorderly and chaotic appearance, for Leonardo his notebooks
Ôwere useful and functional instruments with which to acquire knowledge of the
worldÕ. This study by Robert Zwijnenberg (Lecturer in Aesthetics at the
Univeristy of Groningen) is an enquiry into the character and contents of the
1,500 or so pages covered by Leonardo da Vinci with text and images in his
surviving motebooks. A few of these books, such as Codex Madrid I, are
elegantly written and seek to present a clear and orderly treatment of the
subjects under consideration. Most, however, were used randomely to record
observations, ideas and speculations on the natural world Ñ reminiscent, as
Zwijnenberg suggests, of the ways in which sketchbooks were used in paintersÕ
workshops.
Leonardo
seldom used entries in his note-books as the starting points for the practical
realisation of artistic projects: the fragmentary naure of the manuscripts
must, Zwijnenberg contends, have had some other functional value for Leonardo,
in initiating the process of giving form to, and elaborating, his ideas and thoughts
about science and art.
In
chapter 1, on ÔRhetoricÕ, Zwijnenberg associates the ways in which Leonardo
used his notebooks with conventional rhetoric notebook techniques. He notes the
critical importance of QuintilianÕs notebook technique for Renaissance writers
generally, and that LeonardoÕs writings on the paragone were in particular based on the tradition of epideictic rhetoric.
Guided by Ciceronian principles of argument and rhetorical freedom, Leonardo
made his notebooks Ôopen spacesÕ in which earlier notes might stimulate new
insights and unexpected Ôbright ideasÕ. The physical activities of writing and
drawing, Zwijnenberg suggests, played an independent and integral role in
LeonardoÕs intellectual process: ÔIncessant drawing and writing were the activities
that enabled him to capture the infinite complexity of the world in images and
words... in order to understand itÕ.
Zwijnenberg
investigates LeonardoÕs under-standing of the role of the hand in writing and
in art production, developing the link (if only an ÔevocativeÕ one) previously
proposed between Leonardo and the early quattrocento philosopher Nicholas
Cusanus. In his De ludo globi Cusanus contends
that Ôevery man is free to think whatever he wantsÕ, and Zwijnenberg relates
this to LeonardoÕs freedom of hand and mind in his innovatory drawing practice.
ÔFor Leonardo, a thought became a real thought... only after it had been noted
down. Thinking needed the hand... without writing and drawing no science is
possibleÕ. Analysing the Vitruvian Man drawing,
Zwijnenberg shows that Ôword and image are not elements with independent
significance. Rather, in and through their graphic involvement with each other
meaning is evoked that is not present in either of these elements aloneÕ.
In
chapter 5, Zwijnenberg considers LeonardoÕs contribution to the development of
linear perspective. In MS A, in around 1492, Leonardo had taken perspective
theory further than had Leon Battista Alberti, so that Ôthe emotional and
rhetorical aspects of linear perspective are clearly present in the Last
Supper.Õ Because of its capacity to impose visual
order, perspective enabled Leonardo to fuse Ôtwo fundamental ways of looking at
the world Ñ the synoptic and the micrologicÕ. LeonardoÕs reconciliation of
these ways of seeing is best presented in his anatomical studies, which are
analysed in chapter 6. In this field of his work, the writings and drawings do
for once show Ôsystematic and detailedÕ ordering. The late anatomical drawings
in particular show Leonardo developing a Ôstatic aspect of orderÕ, alongside
the dynamic quality of texts serving Ôas starting points for new thoughts and
ideasÕ that characterises the bulk of his notebook pages.
Zwijnenberg
concludes that Ôthe discrepancy between LeonardoÕs great number of texts and
drawings and the small number of works resulting from these is connected with
his manner of thought and action... Only continual drawing and writing... made
him capable of acquiring knowledge of the sort that, in his view, could do
justice to the complexities of natureÕ. In this book, which approaches
LeonardoÕs work and thought from the standpoint of a philosopher, Zwijnenberg
shows how Leonardo used his notebooks to keep his mind ever on the move. This
unusual and stimulating discussion does indeed reveal much about LeonardoÕs
methods of thought, and about his techniques of recording his observations of
nature in both text and image.
The
publishers, Cambridge University Press, are offering Robert ZwijnenbergÕs
important book to members of the Leonardo da Vinci Society at a 20% discounted
price of £ 28.00. Please order your copy on the green form included with this
issue of the Newsletter.
ÔThe Art of
Invention: Leonardo and Renaissance engineersÕ
An exhibition with this title is on view at
the Science Museum, London, until 24 April 2000. J.V. Field writes: This exhibition has been organised and designed by the Istituto e
Museo di Storia della Scienza of Florence. It follows on from the Leonardo
exhibition at the Hayward Gallery (London) in 1989 and the exhibition on
Renaissance engineering held in Siena in 1991. Both these exhibitions were
hugely successful, in scholarly terms and in attracting a large public. It is
fitting that they should have a successor, which uses some material from each,
and will find a permanent home in Italy in 2002. The exhibition has already
been seen in Florence, Paris and New York. After leaving London it will move to
Stockholm and Munich and then to Japan.
It
is perhaps inevitable that the catalogue cover should feature a reconstruction
of LeonardoÕs flying machine, looking science fictional as ever. But the
exhibition starts with the dome of Florence cathedral. Brunelleschi did a good
stage management job on site, but credit should go to the organisers for providing
excellent photographs and models. The cutaway of BrunelleschiÕs dome is echoed
in the final exhibit, a model of a domed church based on one of LeonardoÕs
sketches.
I
am an inveterate non-reader of labels, much inclined to treat any exhibition as
an art show. In this case, my comparison was with this yearÕs Venice Biennale,
and I am happy to report that models based on drawings by Taccola, Filarete,
Francesco di Giorgio and Leonardo measured up very well as sculpture - with the
additional fun of there being little metal models with handles to turn (though
alas so well-engineered that there was no clunking sound). Further
discouragement from reading the labels was provided by enlarged photographs of
the original drawings displayed on the walls. Many of these are of independent
interest as works of art.
The
juxtaposition of primary sources (the drawings) with the models made from them
was revealing. One could see very easily that in many models the modelmaker had
introduced changes. Occasionally these were to the structure, as in Francesco
di GiorgioÕs machine for raising a column, where the support for the capital
had been altered in a way that avoided a snag for large columns but introduced
possible mechanical weaknesses. Moreover, some features designed to minimise
the effect of the mechanical failure of one part had been removed. Having
worked in a museum, I can assure my readers that the craftsmen who make working
models or reconstructions frequently suggest such modifications. Creativity by
craftsmen, based on their own experience, was probably what Francesco expected
of his own workmen. Most commonly the twentieth-century changes were to
gearing. In some of the large wooden models, the drawings had been interpreted
in a way that pushed them towards impracticality. For instance, crown wheels
had been given excessively long peg teeth (which in use would be subject to
more torque and would thus be more liable to shear off). For a mud extracting
machine, also by Francesco di Giorgio, we have just such a crown wheel engaging
a lantern pinion with long wooden spokes. I felt I could hear the workmenÕs
comments: Ôright bit of clockmakery, turns fine, but what about it taking load,
them gearsÕll bust soon as shovel meets mudÕ. I noticed with no surprise that
the metal model whose handle I was allowed to turn had gearing of a much more
robust design (which I think could not have been scaled up for use in the real
machine in FrancescoÕs time). In fact many of the metal models, designed to
withstand actual use in the exhibition, had gears that were different from
those of the wooden models. Some of the wooden models have electric motors
attached, but they are not subjected to continuous use.
Most
of LeonardoÕs machines appeared less impressive than the earlier ones, and one
noticed the same type of modifications had been made in constructing working
models. Thus here too one was given an interesting insight into the relation
between the drawings and a working object, a clear reminder that we are in the
world of creative extensions of rule of thumb not rigorous preliminary
calculations and precise engineering drawings.
Leonardo
was allowed to steal the show at the very end, with the elegant polished wood
model of the domed church, its chapels clustering round like bubbles, and with
some anatomical drawings (Ôthe body is a machineÕ), including that powerful memento
mori, his drawing of a human skull, partly
sectioned. Maybe it was only an accident that the photograph had made it
life-size.
This
exhibition will do fine as art. And it also has interesting things to say about
Renaissance engineering. You are strongly advised to see it. The
bibliographical information for the catalogue, which is thoroughly scholarly,
very informative and beautifully illustrated, is: Galluzzi, Paolo, The Art of Invention: Leonardo and
Renaissance Engineers, trans. M. Mandelbaum, M.
Gorman, L. Otten and K. Singleton, Florence: Giunti, 1999 (Original Italian
edition 1996), pp. 252, illus., bibl.; ISBN 88-09-01482-0. Further information
may be found on the websit:
>www.imss.fi.it/news/mostra/index.html<
LeonardoÕs Horse is unveiled in Milan
In what will
presumably be the final chapter of the saga of ÔLeonardoÕs HorseÕ, on many
stages of which we have reported in this Newsletter, the full-scale bronze cast was given a ÔBuon ViaggioÕ gala
send-off on 26 June, and thanks to the generosity of Alitalia its seven
sections were flown from the USA to Milan, where they arrived on 11 July.
Meanwhile, after several months of further debate it was finally decided to
erect the Horse not in the courtyard of the Castello Sforzesco, where
LeonardoÕs own clay model was installed at the time that it was destroyed by
the invading French crossbowmen, nor in the Piazza di Santa Maria delle Grazie,
the site intended by Lodovico il Moro, Duke of Milan, for LeonardoÕs equestrian
monument to his father. Rather, perhaps appropriately, the site chosen is the
Ippodromo del Galappo race-course at San Siro on the outskirts of the city.
Another
alternative that had been considered was the piazza outside the Museo della
Scienza e della Technica, whose collection includes a number of models
constructed on the basis of technical and mechanical drawings by Leonardo, but
this proposal was apparently not favoured by the American donors. A fourth was
Malpensa Airport, proposed because it is one of the principal approaches to the
city, so that the Horse would have served the same function of greeting
visitors arriving at Milan by air as does the Statue of Liberty greeting those
arriving at New York by sea. However, the Horse was unveiled on 10 September,
exactly 500 years after the destruction of its forerunner, at San Siro in an
area that has been designated by the comune as a
Ôcultural parkÕ. A second casting has been installed at the Meijer Sculpture
Gardens in Grand Rapids, MI, to Ôserve as a constant reminder in [the USA] of
LeonardoÕs genius and Charles DentÕs dreamÕ (The Scribe: Journal of Leonardo
da VinciÕs Horse, Inc., IX/3, July 1999, p.3). The
LDVHI web site may be visited on >http://www.leonardoshorse.org<.
The Leonardo da Vinci Society
website:
>http://giorgio.hart.bbk.ac.uk/davinci/<
President:
Dr J.V. Field, Department of History of Art, Birkbeck College, 43 Gordon
Square, London WC1H 0PD;
e-mail: jv.field@hart.bbk.ac.uk
Vice-President
and editor of the Leonardo da Vinci Society Newsletter: Professor Francis Ames-Lewis, Department of History of Art,
Birkbeck College, 43 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PD; tel.: 020.7631.6108; fax:
020.7631.6107;
e-mail: f.ames-lewis@hart.bbk.ac.uk
Secretary/Treasurer:
Dr Thomas Frangen-berg, Department of Art History, University of Leicester,
University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK;
tel.: 01533 522522; fax: 01533
522220;
e-mail:
tf6@leicester.ac.uk