Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | shumispace319 |
View: | 232 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 33
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
1/33
The Architecture of Brunelleschi and the Origins of Perspective Theory in the Fifteenth
CenturyAuthor(s): Giulio Carlo Argan and Nesca A. RobbSource: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 9 (1946), pp. 96-121Published by: The Warburg InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/750311
Accessed: 22/01/2010 23:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Warburg Instituteis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/750311?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburghttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/750311?origin=JSTOR-pdf8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
2/33
THE ARCHITECTURE
OF
BRUNELLESCHI
AND THE
ORIGINS
OF PERSPECTIVE
THEORY
IN
THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY
By GiulioCarlo Argan
r | ahe
invention of perspective
and the discovery
of antiquity:
these two
1 eventshave
for long been held to
mark he beginnings
of the Renaissance.
Modern criticism
has sharply limited
the importance
of both events,
and
above
all of the second: so
profounda transformation
f the artistic
conscience
could not clearly
have been caused
by external circumstances.
It is not so
much
needful to decide how
far the artists of
the early Quattrocento
had
penetrated
nto the objective
understanding f
space (if indeed one
can speak
of such an objectiveunderstanding) r into the knowledgeof the documents
relating
to antiqueart, as
it is to discoverthe
internalnecessitythat
urged
them to
seek that knowledge.
In fact the same
inward mpulse s common
to
both activities:
the search
for a more exact knowledge
of
space and that for
a more
exact knowledge
of antique art are inseparable,
until such
time at
least as the study
of antique art assumes,
as it does in
the full maturity
of
humanistic
culture, an independent
existence
as the science of antiquity.
It is
well known that the
new ideal of beauty
was defined, classically,
as
a harmony
of parts, n other
wordsby meansof
the idea of proportion,
which,
accordingto Vitruvius,
is the same
thing as the Greek
9axovLoc;nd it was
with this same
word that
Euclid describedgeometrical
congruity,
which is
the fundamentalprincipleof perspective. If perspective s the process by
which we arrive
at proportion, hat
is to say, at beauty
or the perfection
of
art, it
is also the process
by which we reach
the antique
which is art par
excellence or perfect
beauty.
The
classical radition
had been neither lost
nor extinguished hroughout
the whole
of the Middle
Ages; on the contrary,
it had been diffused
and
popularized.
To set oneself
the task of rediscovering
he ancients,
meant
setting
oneselfto determine
he concretehistorical
value of the achievements
of ancient
art, asdistinguished
rom tsmediaeval
corruptions nd populariza-
tions.
The activityby which
we recognizevalue
is judgment, and
judgment
is an act of the total consciousness. Enthusiasm or, or faith in antiquity,
impulses
which had had, during
the Middle Ages
their moments
of genuine
exaltation,
are henceforth
nsufficient:
he formulationof
judgment, since it
implies
a definitionof the
value of consciousness,
mplies
also a definitionof
the value of reality,
because such a
judgment is a judgment
of being
and
not-being,
of reality and non-reality.
What
was sought for in
ancient art was therefore
not a transcendental
value,
but, in opposition o
mediaeval ranscendentalism,
n immanent
value,
a conceptionof the
world. The touchstone
by which we
recognizevalues is
reality:
not a limitless and
continuousreality
which can be grasped
only in
the particular,and
in which man himself
s absorbed,but
nature as a reality
conceived by man and distinct from him as the object from the subject.
96
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
3/33
THE
ARCHITECTURE
OF
BRUNFT.T.FjSCHI
97
Nature is the
formof
reality, in so
far as it
reveals and
makes it
tangible
in
its
full
complexity: the
laws of
form are
also the
laws of
nature,
and
the
mental
processby
which
we arrive
at the
conception
of nature
is the
same
as that
which
leads to
the
conception of
form,
that is to
say of
art.l The
Renaissancebegins, so far as the figurativearts are concerned,when to
artistic
activity is added
the idea
of art as
a
consciousness f
its
own act: it
is
then that
the
mediaeval ars
mechanica
ecomes ars
liberalis.
Ancient art-
writes D.
Frey2-appears to the
Btestern
mind as
nature, with a
heightened
significance
whereby
the natural
becomes
the
expressionof a
profound
ruth
and of
perfection.
Thusin
the West
every
tendency
to
naturalistic r
rational-
istic
development s
always
referable o a
classical
source.
The
formulationof
a
commonlaw for
nature and
for artistic
form lies
in
perspective:
which may
in
generalterms,
be
definedas
the
method or
mental
procedure
or the
determination f
value. In
the writers
of the
Quattrocento
excepting
naturally
n Cennini
and
Ghiberti
we see
clearly
the belief
that
perspective s not simply a ruleof opticswhich may alsobe applied to artistic
expression,but a
procedure
peculiar to
art, which
in art
has its
single and
logical end.
Perspective s
art itself
in its
totality: no
relation is
possible
be-
tween the
artist
and the
world
except
through the
medium of
perspective,
just as no
relation
is
possiblebetween
the
humanspirit
and
reality
short of
falling back
upon the
mediaeval
antithesis
of
conceptualism
and
nominalism
unless
we
assume the
conception
of nature.
Hence
proceeds hat
identity
of
perspective-painting
nd
science,
clearly
aErmed
by the
theoristsof
the
Quattrocento.
The startingpoint of the controversybetween modernistsand tradition-
alists
at
the
beginningofthe
Quattrocento
eems o me to
be
notably
ndicated
in a
passage,
probably
not
devoid of
polemical
intentions,
n
the Pittura
of
Alberti:
no man
denies
that of such
things
as we
cannot
see there
is none
that
appertainethunto
the
painter: the
painter
studieth to
depict only
that
which is
seen.
On the
other hand,
according o
Cennini,
a typical
representative f
the
traditionalist
chool,the
painter's ask is
to
discover hings
unseen,
that are
hid
beneath
the
shadow of
things
natural.
The exact
interpretation f
the
passage,
which
has been
variously
explained,3 s
to be
found in
Chapter
lxxxvii of the same Librodell'Arte, where it is suggested to the painter
that: if
thou
wouldst
earn to
paint
mountains n
a worthy
manner,
so that
they
be like
nature,
take great
stones
which be
roughand
not
cleansed
and
draw
them as
they are,
adding
light and
shade as it
shall
seem fit to
thee.
Since
the result
to be
aimed at is
a
symbol of the
mountain, the
object
(the
stone) has
no value
in itself,
apart
from its
external
configuration,
1
For the
nature-form
elation in
Renais- 3
E.
Panofsky n Idea
(Teubnered.,
Berlin,
sance
thought see E.
Cassirer,
Individuo
I924), p.
23 and
note 94 has
given
a Neo-
Cosmo,
r.
Federici,Florence,
La Nuova
Italia
Platonic
interpretation
of this
passage
of
ed., p.
25I.
Cennini;
it is,
however, a
question
of
2
D.
Frey,
L'Architetturaella
Rinascenza,
mediaeval
Neo-Platonism
in the
Plotinian
Rome,
I924, p.
7. tradition.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
4/33
98
GIULIO CARLO ARGAN
analogous o that of the mountain. The analogy s purely external,morpho-
logical; but the difference,which consists n the situation of the mountain
in space, is of no interest to the painter because the formal motive of his
picture is not spatial, and indeed takes no account of space. He will link
that image with others n obedience o a rhythmicor narrativecoherencebut
principally n obedience to a manner acquired through long discipleship
with his masters, hat is, with tradition. From the perceptionof the material
datum (the stone) the artisticprocess s still a long one: and since its end is in
infinity or in abstraction,of what significancecan the distance between the
neighbouring tone and the far-offmountainbe when comparedwitll that?
When, on the other hand, Alberti affirms hat the visible is the domain of the
painter, he does not refer to the mechanicalperceptionof the eye and the
limited notions that derive from it, but to a full, total, sensory experience.
The eye may be consideredas a mechanicaland impersonal nstrument,a
recordingmechanism: nstead the senses are already consideredas a grade
of intelligence. Alberti, though he denies that the mental domain of the
painter can extend beyond the limits of the domain of the senses,yet affirms
that the artisticprocessdoes not begin, as it does for Cennini,with the data of
visible things,only to end in an abstraction,but takesplace wholly within the
sphereof sensoryexperienceas a processof understanding nd investigation:
that very experiencewill not be complete and fully defined until after such
reflection.
Cenninirestricted he painter'scontact with reality as far as he could, so
as to leave the widest possible margin for tradition. Alberti, by making
the limits of reality coincide exactly with those of the sensorypowers,refuses
any value to tradition considered as a complex of ideas learned without
reference o direct experience. It is true that Cenninialso demandsa contact
with reality (the stone which is copied as a symbolof the mountain): but that
is only because tradition is transmitted hrough moments of reality, which
are the lives of men. For Alberti, life is an ultimate value: it neither receives
nor transmitsa universal nheritance,but rather, in its very consciousness f
its own finite nature,that is, in the completeness f its experienceofthe world,
it arrivesat a point where it has the value of universality.
We have already pointed out that with the assumptionof the idea of
nature as the limit or definition of reality, the value of consciousness r of
personalitywas contemporaneouslyn processof definition. Certainlyman
also is, and feels himselfto be, nature; but he feels himselfto be so in so far
as he has already detached himself from unlimited reality, and the limits
within which he recognizeshimself are marked by what he can grasp and
understandof reality, that is by nature. Nature and the Ego, born of the
same act, are governed by the same law; man identifieshimself no longer
with the creation, but with the Creator.
The man of the Renaissance, n this Platonicdetermination f his to know
himself n nature, necessarily ocussedhis first and most ardent nterestupon
his own native sensorycapacity,upon his own naturalness. It has been justly
remarked hat the oppositionwhich the thoughtof the Renaissance ays down
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
5/33
THE ARCHITECTURE
OF BRUNF.T.T.F.SCHI
99
as a first definitionof personality s
not that between man and nature, but
that between man
(vir) and fate (fortuna); nature is an organism
not hostile
to man but akin to him, and dowered
with intelligence,an open field wherein
he may extend his personality.''1 From
the oppositionof virtus and fortuna,
which derivesfrom the Scholasticview of man's struggle or good againstthe
constant assaultsof evil, the moral quality
of personality merged; Giovanni
Pisano, Giotto,
Dante, Petrarch,were, during the Trecento,
the great repre-
sentatives of this dramatic conception
of life as a struggle
for redemption.
Nature, conceived
as full and lucid sensoryexperience,presupposes
his moral
conceptiorl f personality; t is a reality
already graspedand comprehended,
and so clear and
transparent hat the human person, that
supremeexample
and image ofthe perfectionofthe divine
creation,can see itselfreflected here
as in a mirror. But this inspired, and
indeed profoundlyclassic moment,
in which man becomes
aware of his own naturalness, s
not the end. Life
is not that moment, it is the seriesof
such moments. If we start by affirming
the moral quality of personality; f, that is, we consider t in relation to an
end, there immediately
arises the problem
of the relation of life, in all its
activities, to its initial naturalnessand
to its final aim.
And here we have
already the problem
of history as a consciousness
f its own activity.'>2In
fact if the final aim
is completeself-knowledge,he whole life
of the spiritwill
consist in retracing
ts natural life, hitherto
empiric, to an ideal ancestryor
an ideal genesis. Burdach's nterpretation
f the Renaissance
as a regenera-
tion or rebirth n the antique (in a Christian,
hat is in an
ethical sense)3 s
thus given its full
force: the processof this palingenesis s
history, through
which we are enabled
to rediscoverour true nature, and
so to rise from an
empiric to a systematic
conceptionof the world. Thus the
oppositionof the
identity of natureand history to the mediaeval identificationof reality with
tradition, finds an
historical ustification,before it finds a theoretical
one; in
the monumentsof ancient art the artists
of the Quattrocento eek to discover
their own Latin
nature in its most essential characteristics.
Even that first
description of humanity as virtusn
opposition to fortunahen assumes a
precise historical
significance; the very one that Petrarch
gives it when he
proclaims that Roman virtSwill take
up arms agaiIlst the
furore
of the
barbariannvaders. It is the rational
light of history that dispels the
darknessof hostile
fate. This idea of Latin virtuss undoubtedly
active in
Cennini,when he points out that Giotto
changedart from
Greek nto Latin,
and made it modern : the term Latin cannot certainlycorrespond o any
concrete figurative
experiment,but only to the moral order
of values. To
oriental mysticism in fact Giotto opposes
a religious sentiment that fulfils
itself in drama,
that is to say in action, and that can be
measured n the
activities of practical life.
Of Brunelleschi,
Manetti says that he restored hat fashion
n buildings
which is called
Roman or antique for before him these
were all German
1 G. Nicco, introduction to the critical
which it follows hat only
in his historycan
edition of the De Prospectiva
ingendi f Piero
man give proof of his freedomand creative
della Francesca, Sansoni,
Florence, I942, power see E. Cassirer,
p. cit., p. 73.
p. I7.
3 K. Burdach,Riforma, inascimento,mane-
2
For the conceptionof life as activity, rom simo, r. Cantimori,Sansoni,Florence,
933.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
6/33
GIULIO CARLO
ARGAN
OO
and
were called
modern.
In Manetti
the
Germans Gothic
Art) have
taken
the place
of the
Greeks,of
whom indeed,
as
Worringerhas
acutelypointed
out,
they were
the natural
heirs. For
Cenninithe
word
modernhasa
positive
sense, for
Manetti it
has a
negativeone:
for Cennini
modern
means
actual,
for Manettinon-actual, since the
corsivo
has become the antique. Modern
has
become the
equivalent
of the
merely
chronological; n
the
antique the
value of
historyis
already
implicit.
That this is
by no
means an
objective
inquiry s,
however,
revealedby the
fact that
Manettiis in
nowise
concerned
to
determine
whether
Brunelleschi
had
rediscoveredor
invented the
con-
structionalaws
of the
ancients,
aws being
taken to
mean both
their technical
expedients
and
their
musical
proportions,
hat is to say
symmetry
and
perspective; those
who might
have taught
him these
things had
been dead
for
hundredsof
years: and
they are
not to be
found in
writing, or if
they be
foundthey may
not
well be
understood;
but his own
industry
and subtlety
did
either
rediscover hem
or else
were
themselves
the
discoverers. It is
significant hat the same thought is to be foundalso in Alberti: If this art
was ever
described n
writing we
are those
who have
dug it
up from
under-
ground, and if
it was never
so
described,we have
drawn it
from
heaven.
To
rediscoveror
to invent, to
find the
law of
ancient art or of
nature,
are
one
and the
same thing;
the same
processby
which we
establish
he concep-
tion
of nature
leadsus on
to establish
he
conception
of beauty, or
of artistic
perfection,and
to recognize
t as
historically
manifest n
Roman art.
Granted
thatthe
investigation
f
natureand the
investigation f history
are
inseparable,
the
problem,
which
has
tormented
modern idealist
critics, of
the relatiors
between
pictorialand
scientific
perspective,or
moresimply
between art
and
science, at the
beginning
of the
Renaissance,
oses its
importance. It
has
alreadybeen remarked hat perspective s not a constant aw, but a moment
in
the
historyof the
idea of space:
whence t
follows hat
the
problemof sight,
in
passing
rom optics
to
geometry,passes
rom the
objective o the
subjective
sphere.l
It is
certain, in any
case, that
the
conception of the
homogenous
quality of
space is first
set forth n
the
figurativearts,
and then,
consequently,
in
the physical
and
mathematical
ciersces.2
To our
modern
consciousness
t seems
obvious that, if
the opposite
had
occurred,art
would have
lost all
creativepower
in the
mechanical
processes
of
applicationand
deduction. In
judging thus
it assumes
as an
absolute
principle a
characteristic
peculiar to
Renaissance art,
and fails
to see its
historicalsignificance:before the Renaissancethe value of art lay not in
creation,
but in
repetition,
rs
continuing the
tradition by
remaining
withirs
it,
instead
of breaking
out of it
in order to
renew it.
The value of
creativity
which the
zesthetic heory
of the
Renaissance
recognizes n
artistic
achieve-
ment,
derivesfrom
the idea
that
nature is
ordered and
therefore
created by
the
artist.
The
novelty or
originalityof a
work of art
is such
only in so far
as
the workof
art
emerges rom
tradition,
and in
emerging rom t,
contradicts
it; and
since
tradition s no
longer a
dogma, but
an object of
criticism,
here
can
be neither
nventionnor
creationexcept
through he
medium
of a critical
G.
Nicco,op.cit.,p.
29.
tion
of reality, E.
Panofsky's
ssay
Die
2
For the
systematic
expositionof the
Perspective
ls
symbolische orm
(Vortrage
problem f central erspectivesanabstrac- derBibl.Warburg,V,
I924-25) iS
essential.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
7/33
THE ARCHITECTURE
OF BRUNELLESCHI IOI
approach to tradition.
The orderingor creation of nature
is thereforenot
an act of authoritybut an act of reason.
The powerof inventionor of creation
comes to the artist
not from the grace of God, but from the
integrity of his
own consciousness,rom the lucidity of
his historicalvision.
Cenninican takepleasure n makingclear his own descentfrom Giotto by
way of arsuninterrupted raditiors hat
passes through Agnolo
and Taddeo
Gaddi; for the artists
of the Quattrocento,beginning at Masaccio,
Giotto is
the great, isolatedprotagonistof the
Trecento: the traditionthat originated
in his art merely
alteredand obscured
ts value, a value whichcriticismalone
shoulddetermine. Even for Giotto art
was mechanical,a craftsman'sabour;
but the judgment
of posterity recognizes n that 'Cfare an
ideal aim, which
it denies to that of imitatorsand followers,
rom the very fact that they are
such. To this making
or producing he art of the Renaissance
opposes
not abstractspeculationbut genius,
invention ;1 he artistin the process
of invention s conscious
of the noveltyof what he is doing,
and so invention
is a making accompaniedby judgmentor the attributionof value.
There thus arisesthe idea of the artist-hero,
a coryphaeusr protagonist
of history; but he
is this in so far as
he is consciousof the value of his own
activity, that is, in
so far as he is himself an historian. His
work breaksthe
continuity of tradition to justify itself
in history, ust as it emergesfrom the
confusionof matter to justify itself in
nature. The mental processwhich, in
the same act, eliminatesmatter and chronicle
(or tradition)by judging them
as values, is, as
we have said, perspective. This process s
clearly described
by Alberti. RememberGhiberti'sdictum:
nothing can be seen except by
light. Though it is here considered
as a physicalphenomenon, his light is
still a divine emanationor irradiation,
a first cause which is reflected n all
things and revealsthem. Alberti on the contrarywishes to clarify the idea
of things: we call
that a thing which occupiesa place.
Glearly f anything
in nature exists in space, space also is
nature; in fact it is the principle of
nature since the place which things occupy
is necessarilyantecedent to the
things. This may seem to imply a serious
objection to the necessity,which
Alberti categoricallyaffirms,of limiting
the domain of art to the visible. We
must deduce from
it that the experience of the senses is
not primary, but
secondary. Reason is therefore he basis
of life, even of the life of the senses.
In fact: large,
small3 long, short, high, low, wide, narrow,
light, dark,
luminous,shadowyand all qualitiesof
that kind-which becausethey may or
may not be addedunto things, the philosophers re wont to call accidents-
are such that all knowledgeof them is
made by comparison. It is therefore
by reasoning hat
the accidentsare distinguishedrom the substance
of things.
But this substance
is not, as has been assumed, their plastic
form, their
volume: volume is perceivedthrough
the medium of light and shade, height
and width, and these qualities, too, have
been placed among the accidents.
1 In Albertian erminology he facultythat
ingegno and mathematical ationality, nd
simultaneouslynvestigates
nd invents,or in for the necessity of artistic
creation as an
other words sums up and synthetizes the
expressionof the first, see Lionello Venturi,
moments of speculation and of action is
Storiadellacritica 'arte, talian ed., Florence,
ingegno. For the distinction between
I945,p. I28.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
8/33
GIULIO
GARLO
ARGAN
I02
Moreover t is
clear
that in
making
his
catalogue
of
accidents,
Alberti
ntended
to
exhaust
all
the
possible
forms of
the
visible.
Strictly
speaking,
f a
thing
had
been
strippedof
all its
accidents,
nothing
would
remain of
it
except the
void in
space left
by its
disappearance.1
ButAlbertiknows that if painting is concernedonly with the visible, it is
impossible o
separate
the
thing from
its
accidents:
indeed
the
thing
itself is
an
accident
until it is
known
by
comparison :
t would
be
illimitably
wide
and
illimitably
ong, and
illimitablydeep
if
we did
not
establish he
relation
between
width,
length,
and
depth;
all
dazzling
ight or
impenetrable
arkness
if
we did
not
establishthe
relation
between
light
and
shade. We
may
say
therefore hat
the idea
or
substance
of a
thing is
merely
a
position in
space,
but
that
position is
determined
preciselyby
the fact
that it
gives a
situation
proportionately
ter
comparatione) to all
the
accidents,
that is to
say,
because
it
re-absorbs nd
eliminatesthe
matter of
which the
thing
is
composed
nto
a
systemof
proportional
elations.
This is indeed the functionof design. The graphicoutlineis originally
linked
with
the
colouristic
matter
as a
boundary
between
zones
of
colour:
in
the
Trecentesque
radition
t was
purelya
rhythmic
pattern
or a
narrative
n
rhyme
and that
rhythmic
cadence
was still
dependenton
the
relation
of the
line to
an
already
ormulated
olouristic
modulation.
For
Alberti the
outline
is the
edge of
the
surface, hat
is the
boundary
between
fullness
and
void; nor
can
we say
that it
belongs
more
to
the
fullness han
to the
void (or
more
to
the
thing than
to space)
because ts
function s
precisely
hat of
mediating,or
of
acting as
a link
and
solder
between
one
and the
other.
As has
been
seen,
in fact,
emptiness
cannotbe
thought of
apart
from
fullness,nor
can
spacebe
conceived
of
separately
rom
the
things that
occupy
it.
(When
Masolino
or
Paolo Uccello wish to represent the void independentlyof the full, they
reduce
perspective o
the
Trecentesque
dea of
infinite
spatiality.) The
need
now
becomes
clear for
a
recourse o
Euclidean
geometry or
to the
Platonic
description
of
geometrical
orms
as
perfectforms
or
ideas
archetypes
rom
which all
sensible
orms
are
derived:
geometrical
ormsare
pure
spatial
sites
or
pure
metrical
relations
which
in their
own
finitude
expressthe
whole
of
space.
It is not
by
chance
that
Alberti
defines
design in
the
same
words as
thosewhich
his
master,
Francesco
Filelfo,used
n
defining he
idea as
described
by
Plato: a
representation ab
omni
materia
separata.
The
conceptionof
design,
as
the
commonroot
of all
the arts,
that is,
as the
designationof the absolutevalue of form, is thereforevery closelyrelatedto
the
conceptionof
perspective:
perspective s
actually
the
method
of
design,
in so
far as
it is
absolute
representation. It
is
superfluous
o point
out
that
representation
nd
invention
may
be
equivalent
terms:
because
there
can be
1 On
the
impossibilityof
imagining
space of
the
thoughtof
Cusanus,
who was in
Italy
as
erepty,or
as an
enclosing
medium
that in
the
early
decadesof
the Isth
cent.
and
encloses
nothing ee
Cassirer,
p.
cit., p. 285.
who
certainly
knew
Alberti,
see,
besides
Alberti's
conception of
cognitione
per
com-
Cassirer's
undamentalwork,
G.
Nicco, op.
paratione,the
basis of
the
theory of
propor-
cit. To G.
Nicco,
too,we
owea
notable
essay
tion,
is
certainly
related o
the idea
expressed
on the
developmentof
perspective
heoryin
by
Cusanus
(De
Docta
Ignorantia I .
I ):
treatises
from
Euclid to
Piero
della
Fran-
Comparativa
est
omnis
inquisitio,
medio
cesca,
Le Arti,
V, I942,
no.
2,
p.
59.
proportionis tens. On thegreat mportance
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
9/33
THE
ARCHITECTURE
F BRUNELLESCHI
I03
no
representation,
ut only
mechanical
mitation,
f the image
does not
wholly
replace
the object
and become
a substitute
for it
as a value
or authentic
reality, ust
as
nature,as
a representation
f reality,
becomes
he one authentic
reality
for the
thought
of the Renaissance.
II
If we admit
that the
artisticprocess
has a
basis
of historical
hought,the
origin
of the
fundamental
deas of Renaissance
Art-perspective
anddesign-
must
be sought
in the
work of an
artist-hero:
only through
such a
medium
could these
ideashave
any positive
effect
on the subsequent
ourse
of artistic
development.
The
trattati
d'arte
themselves,
hough ostensibly
concerned
with
a theoretical
definitionof
the idea of
art, are in
reality the
firstattempts
at a history
of
art as a history
of the
artists,because
their
criterion s
no other
than a generalization rom those worksof art in which they perceive an
absolute
value. The
formulation
of
the principle
of perspective,
or the
inven-
tion of
perspective,
are ascribed
by general
consent
to Brunelleschi:
he first
person
of that artistic
trinity
which is completed
by
Donatello
and
Masaccio.
On this
point Manetti
is uncompromising:
in those
times
he brought
to
light and
himselfput
into practice
that which
painters
o-day call
perspective
because
it is
a part of the
science
that consists
n placing
those
diminutions
and enlargements
hat appear
to men's
eyes from
afar or
close at hand,
both
skilfully
and
fittingly . .
and
fromhim originated
he
rulewhich
is the mean-
ing of all
that has
been done
from
that time to
this.
It is interesting
to note
the distinction
that Manetti
makes
between the
originating ntuitionof Brunelleschiand the codificationor applicationof it
which the
dipintori
have successively
oggi )drawn
rom it.
The distinc-
tion
is not purely
chronological.
For
the painters,
perspective
s the law
for
making
housesand
plains and
mountains
and landscapes
of everykind,
and
in every
place,with
figuresand
other things
of such a
size as befits
the
distance
from
whichthey
areobserved.
Had
Brunelleschi
laborated
his rule
as a law
of vision,
Manetti
would
not have
so accurately
distinguished
he
Brunel-
leschian
principle
from the interpretation
which has
later been
given to
it
by other
painters,
who have
applied it
to a consideration
of the
external
world
that has
clearly
no connection
with architecture.
It is
thus impos-
sible to distinguishBrunelleschi's esearcheson perspective rom his artistic
activity,
that is to
say, from his
architecture:
t is from
this,
as Manetti
points
out, that
the painters
deduce
their law
of vision.
This means
that,
since
architecture
s free
of any necessity
o imitate
reality,
the formal
discipline
of
architecture
must precede
and condition
the
painter'scontact
with reality;
he will
indeedstudy
reality,
because the
painter'srealm
is the
visible world,
but
he will
do so through
the formal
patterns
of architecture.
This
is, we
think,
the historical
origin of
the principle
that architecture
s
the basis
or
motherof all
the arts:
a principle
easily reducible
to the
other (of
design as
the
common
root
of all the
arts), which
will be
clearly formulated
n
the
Cinquecento.
Architecture,
indeed,
as an
art free from
any necessity
of
imitatingreality, s design tself:representationeparate rom ognimateria.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
10/33
GIULIO
CARLO
ARGAN
o4
It is
now
necessary
o
see
how
this
law
which s
the
meaning
of all
that
has
been
done
from
that
time
to
this
was
developed
in
the
architecture
of
Brunelleschi.
Manetti,
a
mathematician,
ays
of
perspective:
not
without
reason,
ust
now did I call it science, orscience s making according o law. The Life
of
Manetti
is
of
later
date
than
the
Pittura
f
Alberti
and
is
largely
indebted
to it;
and
one
of
the
most
important
nnovations,
n
Alberti's
treatise,
was
perhaps
that
idea
of
knowledge
by
comparison
which
emerges n
opposi-
tion
to
the
Scholastic
conception
of
knowledge
as
scire
per
causas.
Since
the
Pittura
of
Alberti
consists
of
reflections
on
the
great
Masters
of
the
early
Quattrocento,
and
particularly
n
Brunelleschi,t is
to
the
latter
that
we
may
attribute,
not
perhaps
the
formulation,
but
the
first
understanding
of
that
principle
which
for
causes,
understood
as
external
moving
forces,
substitutes
laws,
understoodas
immanent
causes
which
are
producedby
the
reciprocal
co-relation
of
phenomena.
In
the
architecture
of
Brunelleschi,
herefore,
must be sought the firstunderstanding f design as an act of knowledgeor
cognitione
er
comparatione,
hat
is,
the
first
laying
down
of
that
theory
of
pro-
portion,
which
in
its
turn
becomes
the
basic
criterion or
the
understanding
of
ancient
art.
That
Brunelleschi
had
undertaken
some
inquiry
into
the
laws
of
vision
may
well be
inferred
rom
what
Manetti
tells
us
of the
two
panels
on
which
Brunelleschi
ad
depicted
the
Baptistery
nd
the
Palazzo
della
Signoria.
Yet
the
very
objects
depicted,
buildings
and
not
landscapes,
suggest
that
these
studies
were
not
connected
with
the
formulation
of a
general
theory,but
with
the
concrete,
particular
igurative
and
architectonic
nterests
of
the
artist.
Of
the
first
of
these
two
panels
we
know
that
the
spectator
had to
look
at it reflected n a mirror, hroughan openingcut in the wood,at a distance
proportionate
o
that at
which
the
painter
had
placed
himself
while
at
work:
moreover,
nstead
of a
painted
sky
there
was
a
background
f
burnished
ilver
which
reflected
the
real
sky
with
its
clouds
moving
before
the
wind.
The
second
panel, on
the
other
hand,
being
too
large
to
permit
the
use
of
this
device,
was
cut
out
along
the
line
of
the
rooftops,
and
one
loooked
at
it
against a
background f
sky.
Manetti's
description
s
enough to
show
that
the
genesis
of
several
ideas
on
which
Alberti
was
later
to
build
up
his
perspective
heory
can be
traced
back
to
Brunelleschi.
By
means
of the
device
of
the
hole
in the
middle
of
the
picture,the spectatorwasconstrained o lookat the painting,reflected n the
mirror,
rom
the
same
point of
view
as
that
in
which
the
painter
had
placed
himself.
The
straight
ine
which
connects
he
painter's
eye
with
the
centre
of
the
thing
depicted is
already
what
Alberti
will
define
as a
centric
ay:
that
is
the
axis
of
the
visual
pyramid
whose
apex
coincides
with
vanishing
point.
So
far
we
are
still
within the
domain
of
vision,
though
it
is
even
now
most
important to
observe
that
for
Brunelleschi t
is
essential
that
vision
should
have
a
single
and
constant
point of
view:
hence
the
immobility
and
im-
partiality
of
the
artist
face
to
face
with
truth.
But
the
painting
must
be
looked
at in
a
mirror;
and
this
is
not
merely an
artifice
for
making the
spectator's
point of
view
coincide
with
that
of the
painter.
Alberti,
who
was
certainly amiliarwith Brunelleschi'sssays n perspective,n fact advisesthe
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
11/33
THE ARCHITECTURE
OF BRUNELLESCHI
Io5
painter to make use
of the mirroras a
means of checking he
artisticqualities
of his painting.
When he speaksof obtaining
an effect of relief
by the propor-
tionate use of light
and shade, Alberti
advises: and you
will find in the
mirrora good judge;
for, as I know
how things that are
well painted may
have greatbeautyin the mirror,so it is marvellous o see how everyfault in
painting
shows itself
more ugly in the
mirror. So let the
mirrorcorrect the
things which you
have taken
from nature. It is
well knownthat the
mirror
reverses
he image:
if the image is unsymmetrical
he mirror
will make this
defect more apparent,
because t removes
t from a position
to which
the eye
has grown
accustomed: f, on
the contrary,
he imageis perfectly
ymmetrical,
reversal
will not be able to
modify t. In other terms:
f thepainterhas
clearly
determined
and constantly
maintainedhis point
of view,
the centricray of
the direct vision
and that of the reflected
vision
will coincide,while otherwise
they will
diverge. The question,
it
will be seen, is one
of symmetryand
proportion.
Another mportantpoint: Brunelleschi oes not paint the sky. In the first
panel
he reflects t in a mirror-like
urface, n the
secondhe cuts out the
wood
so that
the real skycan insert
itself into the picture.
His interesttherefore
s
limited
to thingswhich as
Alberti will say, occupy
a place : the sky
does
not occupy
a place
and cannot be
reduced to measure
or known per
comparatione.
Since it cannot
be represented,
but only imitated,the
artist
forbears
o paint it. The strict
logic of
the argument s unexceptionable:
but
it is the argument
of an architect
and not of a painter.
If Filippohad
wished
to lay down a general
aw
of vision, and one that
would thereforebe
equally
valid for the vision
of landscape,he could
not have failed to
take the
sky into
account. He does
not take it into account
because his reasoning
s
related
only to architecture,which is a finite space, that, by its own finitudeor pro-
portion,
gives definitionalso
to the spatialatmosphere
n which
it is immersed;
and he
forbears o paint the
sky because buildings
stand out against
the real
sky and not against
a paintedbackground.
It remains o be
seen what value
Brunelleschi
ttributed o these
exercises n perspective.
It is clear that
they
had a
demonstrative
or, as we should
say now, a polemical
aim. Such
polemics
could only have been
directed against
the art of the late Trecento
tradition,for one
thing because
thesepictorialessays
belongto the first
phase
of the
Master'sactivity,between
the last years of
the fourteenthand
the first
of the
succeeding century.
To those painters
who were intent
only on
decoration,Brunelleschiwishedto demonstratepainting as an instrumentof
knowledge.
One might even
ask oneself whether,
in that
atmosphereof
naturalistic
propaganda, the
happy
invention of the silvery
background
which reflects the
light of the physical
heavens, may not
perhaps imply a
satirical
and almost irreligious
allusion to those
shining backgrounds
f fine
gold in which the
devout paintersof the
traditionsought to
mirror he mystic
light of
God.
The technical
miracle of the dome
of Santa Maria
del Fiore (P1. 7a)
has distracted
critics not a
little from the significance
which that long
and
strenuousconstructive abour holds in the art of Brunelleschi. Since it is
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
12/33
106
GIULIO
ARLO
ARGAN
known
hat
Filippo
had
originally
planned
to
make
the
dome
in
the
form
of
a
hemisphere,
nd
that
only
on
second
thoughts
did
he
decide
to
carry
out
the
scheme
aid
down
in
Arnolfo's
model,
the
problem
of
the
dome
would
seem
to
be
educed
to
a
mere
question
of
technique:
the
method
of
vaulting
it
withoutcaffiolding.
Was
t
really
technically mpossible o realizeArnolfo's
plan
by
tlle
usual
means?
ne
may
easily
believe
that,
in
those
first
decades
of the Quattro-
cento,
o
artist
would
have
dared
to
build
vaulting
on
so
vast
a
scale;
it
is
indeed
ighly
probable
that
throughout
he
Trecento,
when
decoration
ook
precedence
f
construction,
here
may
have
been
a
falling-off
n
constructive
skill.
ut
it
is
impossible
o
believe
that
Arnolfo
can
have
planned,
and
his
successors
aised
as
far
as
the
drum,
a
building
which
the
technical
resources
of
he
ime
did
not
permit
them
to
roof
over.
What
is
more,
Brunelleschi
never
even
thought
of
using
the
traditional
technique.
rom
the
outset
he
had
in
mind
the
idea
of
building
the
dome
withoutcaffolding;he
might
give
up
the
form
he
had
first
envisaged,
but
he
would
ot
give
up
his
method of construction.Only a mistakenestimate
of
Brunelleschi's
classicism
as
induced
the
belief
that
the
spherical
vault
represented
formal
ideal,
later
sacrificed
o
contingent
needs.
When
we
remember
hat
the
method
of
vaulting
the
dome
without
scaffolding
had
been
educed
from
the
Roman
circular
domes,
the
terms
of
the
question
are
reversed:
he
most
reasonable
hypothesis
s
that
Filippo
had
thought
first
of
a
emi-circular
ault
because
it
was
from
such
models
that
he
had
evolved
his
ystem,
and
that
he
returned
ater
to
Arnolfo's
plan
when
he
had
become
persuaded
hat
the
system
might
equally
well
be
applied
to
domes
with
ribs
and
ointed
arches.
This
method,
which
the
conclusive
researches
of
Sam-
paolesilaveshownto be of Romanorigin,
consists
n
walling
the
dome
with
courses
f
bricks
disposed
in
a
herring-bone
pattern. Brunelleschi'sormal
ideal
id
not
end
in
the
pattern
of
the
pointed
arch
or
of
the
single
span:
it
was
he
ideal
of
a
form
capable
of
sustaining
tself
throughout
he
process
of
its
wn
growth,
of
producing
the
force
that
sustains
t,
of
disposing
tself
in
space
y
virtue
of
its
own
interior
structural
coherence
and
vitality,
by
its
natural
roportionality,
ike
that
of
bones
and
mernbers.
The
herring-bone
method
of
construction
s
applied
in
Santa
Maria
del
Fiore,
n
a
much
larger
scale
than
it
is
in
any
of
the
ancient
models,
that
is
to
ay,
to
the
measurements
f
the
drum
already
constructed.
The
problem
setby
Brunelleschi
onsisted
herefore
n
reducing
a
gothic
dimension
o
pro-
j1ortion
hrough
the principleof self-support,hat is of
the
autonomy
of
the
form
n
space.
Thus
the
double
vault
of
the
dome
finds
a justificationnot
only
practical
but
figurative
(in
the
actual
words
of
Filippo
so
that
it
may
appear
more
enlarged
and
splendid ):
the
artist
feels
the
need
for
establish-
ing
an
exact
relation
between
the
form
of
the
dome
and
the
various
properties
of
space
that
are
summed
up
in
it.
In
the
interior
he
curvature
f
the
surfaces
of
the
octagon,
sums
up
and
co-ordinates
he
various
spatial
trends
of
the
1
p.
Sampaolesi,
La
Cupola
i
Santa
Maria
particularly
n
the
dome,
see
the
studies
con-
del
Fiore;
il
progetto,
a
costruzione,
stituto
di
tained
in
Atti
del
I
Congresso
Nazionale
i
Archeologia
Storia
dell'Arte,
Rome,
I94I.
Storia
dell'Architettura,
eld
at
Florence
in
On sundry
Brunelleschian
problems,
but
I936
and
published
by
Sansoni
n
I938.
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
13/33
a
Brunelleschi,
Dome
of
Santa
Maria
del
Fiore,
Florence
pp.
I05
ffs.)
b
Lanter
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
14/33
8
a Brunelleschi, azzi Chapel,Florence p.
I09)
b Brunelleschi,Detail of FaKade of Pazzi Chapel,
Florence (p.
I
og)
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
15/33
THE ARCHITECTURE
OF
BRUNELLESCHI
Io7
naves and
the presbytery,
as into
a common
horizon;
on
the exterior
he
ribs
mark
the limit
or the
juncture
between
the
masses
of the
building
and the
circumambient
pace.
If
the effect
of the
dome
is spatial,
the
process
which
leads
to the definition
of space
is a constructive
process.
But
thisconstructive
labour differsfrom the mediaevalmechanicaecause its acts are no longer
repeated
by tradition,
but determined
by
reason:the
coherence
c?f
hese acts
must there
be referred
o
a rational
principle.
Manetti
says that
in
Rome
Brunelleschi
saw
the ancients'
methods
of
building
and their
symmetry;
and
it
seemed
to
him that
he saw
there very
clearly
a certain
order,
as
of bones
and members.
It is not
a question
of the
generic
anthropomorphism
hat
recurs,
following
on
the traces
of Vitruvius,
in the treatise
writers
of the
Renaissance:
t is a question
of rational
discrimination
etween
the
elements
that
bear
and the
elements
hat
areborne,
and
of their
distribution
according
to order,
that
is
according
o symmetry
and
proportion.
In Romanesque
architecture
s in
Gothic, the
artistic
deal to
be realized,
though by differentfigurativemethods,is the effect of unlimitedspace. In
the
first,
weight
prevails
over
strain,
and the
effect of
space
depends
upon
mass;
in the
second,
strain
prevails
over
weight
and the
effect depends
on
linear
tension.
In either
case
the motive
force s
an energy
that
develops,
and
tends
to
develop
towards
the infinite,
but
which
finds
a check
and a
deter-
mination
n
matter.
And matter
s already
orm,because
f
matterhas
already
a spiritual
quality
of its own
as a
divine creation,
we cannot
conceive
of any
form
that transcends
t. Form,
force,
matter
make up
an
indivisible
unity:
force
is not
only
relativeto
the hardness
and
the elasticity
of matter,
but
also
to
the
thickness,
the
extension,
the flexion,
the
outline,
the
section
of the
element
n
which
it is expressed.
One may
arriveat
length
at the sublimation
of matterto sucha point that a mass whichphysicallypresseson the ground
can express
an
ascent;
none the
less, form
remains
a quality
of
matter,
how-
beit
a supernatural
one,
a revelation
of
its inner
spirituality.
A Gothic
cathedral
tends in
fact
to be
a compendium
of all knowledge,
that is
of all
reality;
and this
not only,
as Male
has observed,
n
its decorative
details
but
in
its deepest
structural
ntentions.
Since reality
is the
infinite
in terms
of
individual
things,
it is
expressed
n
architecture
by
individual
forces:
Gothic
architecture
s in
fact the
architecture
of the individualization
f forces.
Even
the
historical
interest
that
attracts
Brunelleschi
o a study
of the
antique
would have
no justification
f
he had
not sought
in antique
art
for a
standardof comparison n the criticismof tradition,that is for a meansof
freeing
himselffrom
a
tradition
hat
wasstill
alive:
history s
always
a criticism
and an
overcoming
of tradition.
Moreover,
the very
fact that
the
need
was
felt for a
spatial
definition
which
should
include
and
resolve
the whole
problem
of reality,
necessarily
presupposes
he experience
of Romanesque
and
Gothicspatiality
as the expression
of infinite
reality;
this
was
the matter
which
had to
be reduced
nto
measure.
runelleschi's
mental
process
n regard
to
tradition
s
already
hatwhich
Marsilio
Ficino
will define
n Platonic
erms:
in
corpore
animus a
singulis
ad
species,
a specibus
transit
ad rationes ;
or
since
we
are dealing
with
architecture,
romindividual
forces
to classes
and
from
classes
to systems.
To group
several
forces
together
into a
class it is
necessary o define their quantityand quality; thus it happensthat we are
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
16/33
GIULIO
CARLO
ARGAN
o8
no
longer
dealing
with
forces
n
action
or in
development,
uch as
strainand
stress,
but
with
those that
are
developed or
in
equilibrium,
such
as
weight
which
has
its
exactly
corresponding
esistance.
One
might
say,
paraphrasing
Alberti, that
our
knowledge
of
forces s
reachedby
comparison, hat
is
by theirreciprocal imitingsand oppositionsor by their reciprocal propor-
tioning of
each
other.
Only
when
the
dramatic
conflict of
forces
has
been
exhausted,
only,
that is,
when
a
catharsis
has
been
achieved,
will
architecture
cease
to be a
fragment
of
reality,
and
becomea
representation f
reality.
And
since
experience
which
here
means
the
experience
of
Gothic
architecture,
in
which
the
force
of an
element is in
proportion o
its
momento
or to
its
extension
and
duration
taught
that
the
strength of
a
force is
relative
to a
space, to
constant
forces
there
must
therefore
correspond
onstant
ntervals.
This
constancy
of the
relation
between
force
and
interval
is the
quality
of
the
single
span
arch
as
opposed
to
the
pointed one.
To
compare
the
single
span
with
the
pointed
arch it
was not
necessary
o go
back
to
Vitruvius
and
to ancientmonuments:TuscanRomanesquearchitecturewas enough. Yet
the
arcades
of the
Loggia
degli
Innocenti
with
their
very
wide
and
extended
span,
are
undoubtedly
much
more
akin
to the
arches
of the
Loggia
della
Signoria
and even
to
the
ogival
arches
of S.
Maria
Novella
and S.
Maria del
Fiore
than
to
those
of the
church of
the
SS.
Apostoli
or of
Roman
monu-
ments.
In
the
latter,
indeed, the
function
of
support
is
translated
nto an
equilibrium
between
the
masses
of
fullnessand
of
emptiness; n
the
former
he
line
has a
value of
its
own as
a
supreme
ormal
declaration
of
spatial
nfinity.
This
is
the
value to
which
Brunelleschi
would
give a
clear
definition,
measur-
ing the
depth of
the
void by
the
actual
outline of
the
arch.
He
reflects
hat in
the
single
span
arch,
all
points of
the
semicircleare
equi-distant
n
relationto
vanishingpoint, that is in relationto the apex of a half cone having its base
within
the
semicircle
tself:
therefore
he
width
of
the
curve is
relative to
the
depth of
the
extensionof
the
arch
instead of
to the
weight
which it
sustains.
The
arch
s
therefore
lwaysan
intercisione,
primo
piano, n
a
perspective
progression
which
has
its
term at
vanishing
point; the
curve of
the
arch, as
a
projectionof
depth
on a
plane
surface,
has
thus
the
valueof a
horizon.
For
Brunelleschi
oo,
as for
Donatello and
Masaccio,
Romanitas
s in
the
first
nstance
toscanita
the
definitionof
his
own
historical
character
begins
with
that
of
his
own
natural
character.
If, in
determining
he
spatial
value
of the
arch he
relies on
Tuscan
Gothic
architecture,
n
determining
the
spatialvalue of the plane he relieson the more remotepractice of Tuscan
Romanesque
architecture.
It
would
be
interesting
to
know
whether
the
opinions
expressed
by
Manetti n
his
excursus
n the
decadenceof
architecture
in the
Middle
Ages
are
entirely
his
own, or
whether
they
go
back, in
part
at
least, to
Brunelleschi: t
is
anyhow
significant,
that in
certain
Florentine
Romanesque
buildingshe
shouldsee
some
reflection
of
classic
splendour,
and
should
attribute
hem, by
an
error ull
of
meaning,
to the
Carolingian
period,
that is
to
the
time of
the
most
intense
classical
revival of
the
Middle
Ages.
Brunelleschi's
rchitecture
reserves
more
than
one
reminiscence
f
the
marble
inlays
that
adorned he
walls
of
Florentine
Romanesque
hurches,
or
example
in
the
pure
scrittura f
space
on the
flat
surface
by
means of
grey
pilasters
and arcadeson a whitebackground.One mightevenventureto interpret he
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
17/33
THE
ARCHITECTUREOF
BRUNELLESCHI
IO9
faSadeof the
Pazzi
Chapel
(P1.8a) as a
development f the
spatialtheme
ofthe
Romanesque
nlays.
One might
pointout
that the
artisthad
arrived
hrough
the exercise
of a subtle
dialectic,at
that
absolute
representation f space
n the
flat, by
identifying
inearand
chromatic
values; and
that in this
mutual
denti-
fication,the linearelement s purgedof the materialqualityof the outline ust
as the
chromatic
element is
purged of the
material
quality of
the
surface.
INhe
bean-pattern
rieze, the
grooved
pilasters
are far
from
being a
simple
reproduction
of the
antique: they
are an
alternation,
almost a
vibration,
of
ligllt
and shade
(P1.8b).
Precisely
becausethis
plane
generates ight
fromthe
frequencyof
its
relationsof light
and shade,
it may be
distinguished
rom the
surface,
which is
always a
defence in
relation to
an
external
source of
light,
ancl
becomes
identifiedwith
the
totality of
space.
And perhaps
this is
the
intellectual ourceof
that light
which in Piero
della
Francesca s no
longer
physical but
spatial.
The
Florentine
Romanesque nlays
were
undoubtedly
a
sign of a
return
to the
fountain-headof the
Byzantine
tradition,
perhaps
even of an obstinate Tuscan resistance to the renewing tide of Lombard
architecture. By
means of
these inlays
an
attemptwas
made to
resolve
the
effect of
space which
Lombard
architecture
enclosed within
the
complex
articulationof its
masses, nto
chromatic
ermson
a flat
surface.l
Geometrical
forms, while
eliminatingany
modulation n
colouristic
relations
within the
design,
employed
colours in
absolute terms
of
contrast on the
surface:
no
spatial
hypothesis s
possible
beyond a
strict
equation of
the opposing
terms
of
surfaceand
depth. A
most
subtleand
intimately
Platonic
process
ofthought
warnsthe
artistthat if
he
thinksof
space as
possessing
nfinite depth,
he will
find it
quite
impossible to
distinguish it
from the
surface:
therefore
the
infinity
of space
cannot
be a
sensorzr
erceptionor an
effect,
but a
concep-
tual representationor a cause, such as are for instance the figures of
geometry.
In this
mediaeval
Tuscan
Platonism here
arealready
to be
found
the
premisesof
the
transcendental
ogic of a
great German
Platonist of
the
fifteenth
century,
Cusanus.
For
Brunelleschi he
plane is the
place on
which there
occursthe
projec-
tion or
definitionof
depth, not as
an effect,
but
as pure
value or
geometric
form.
Therefore
he place is
a pure
mental
abstraction, he
precondition
or
the
representationf
space.Alberti
will
translate
his
intuitionof
Brunelleschi's
into a
formula:
the surface
s
still matter,
and as it
were the
outer skin
of
things,
although t
is the
extreme imit
of
matter, ts
suturewith
space;
instead
the plane is a geometricentity, the intersection f the visualpyramid. In
fact the
plane in
Brunelleschi's
rchitecture
s an
intersection
nd not
a
surface;
t is
the place
on to which
the
variousspatial
distances
are
projected,
and on
whichthe
infinite
dimensions f space
are
reducedto the
three
dimen-
sionsof
perspective
pace.
Since on the
plane these
distances
annotbe
valued
as
effects (for
they
would be
chaotically
superimposed
ne upon
another)
but
only as
measllrements, he
plane is
the
condition of
their
cognitione
per
comparationeX'that is to
say of
their
proportionality.
1 For a
fuller
analysisof the
formal
values manica
Romanica,
Florence,
Nemi, I936,
and
of
Romanesqueand
Gothic
architecture n
L'Architettura
talianadelDuecento
del
frecento,
Tuscany
I refer
the reader to
my two
Florence,
Nemi, I937.
volumes,
L'ArchitetturaProtocristiana,Prero-
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
18/33
GIULIO GARLO ARGAN
IO
On the fagadeof the Pazzi Chapel,for instance,every separateportionof
the plane has its point of reference n a corresponding alue of depth in the
porticoor the interior,and is a projectionof this: hence the lack of an effective
articulationof the parts which are elements of limitation and not elements
of force, and the compositionof the plane in squaresand recesses(P1. ga)
All surfaces f a body that are simultaneously isible, Albertiexplains, wili
form a pyramid composedof as many lesser facets as there are surfaces n
the thing seen. It is the principle of the homogeneityof space. But the
principle of the homogeneityof space destroys that of the homogeneityof
matter: for in orderto think of space as homogenous, hat is, as uninterrupted
by the presenceof bodies, it is necessary o think of those bodies as composed
of space, that is as brokenup into a succession f planes. Given this distinction
between the plane, as a complete representation f space, and the surface, t
is hard to accept the ingenious thesis of L. H. Heydenreichl who makes a
sharpdistinctionbetweenthe firstand secondphasesof Brunelleschi's ctivity,
between the moment of the
Wandbauten
nd that of the
Pfeilerkomvtraktionen,
or between the period when the wall is only a raumbegrenzendechale nd
that irl which it arrivesat a raumbildendeunktion. he cause of this sudden
stylistic evolution is said to be the journey to Rome, which Heydenreich
postponesto the years between I432 and I434; but the later researchesof
Sampaolesi ix the date conclusivelyat a time previous to the beginning of
work on the dome. In fact there is a complete coherencebetween the works
of the first and secondperiods: the problemof Brunelleschi's rtisticdevelop-
ment does not so much consist n determining he date ofthe journey to Rome,
as in forminga preciseestimateof his relationswith Donatello and Masaccio,
which were undoubtedlyclose and reciprocal.
According o Heydenreich's heoryBrunelleschi's rtisticdevelopment an
be codified into the artist'sprogressive bandonmentof building to a longi-
tudinal plan, for building to a central plan, which is the classic schemepar
excellence,
the most rigorous and systematic application of the Vitruvian
theory of the module. In reality, if one starts from the spatial premisesof
Brunelleschi he two plans cannot be so sharply differentiated:on the con-
trary, they complete each other by turns. And here again we find, as funda-
mental, the practice of Gothic architecture,which so often unites the two
plans or imposesone upon the other. The dome of S. Mariadel Fiore is itself
conceived as a co-ordinationor synthesisof the longitudinal depths of the
naves and the stellate spacesof the octagon.
Both the Sacristyof S. Lorenzoand the Pazzi Chapelare typical examples
of the synthesisbetween a longitudinalplan and a central plan. In the Pazzi
Chapel (P1. gb), for instance, the simple tracing of an entablatureand an
arcadeon the plane carries he depth of the squaredapse on to the longitudinal
walls: in the sameway the depth of the windowsopening o the front s graphi-
cally repeatedbetweenthe sunkpilasters. Every plane has therefore he same
content of space. This solution s perfectly ogical, because trictlyspeaking
a figure in plane geometry s no less representative f space than a figure in
solid geometry: indeed the hemisphericaldome has the same function of
1 L. H. Heydenreich, SpatwerkeBrunel- lungen,
93I.
leschis, Jahrbuch erPreussischenunstsamm-
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
19/33
9
a Brunelleschi, Portico of Pazzi Chapel, Florence
(p. I I O)
b Brunelleschi, nteriorof Pazzi Chapel,Florence p.
I I O)
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
20/33
o
a Brunelleschi5an Lorenzo,Florence(p. I I 2)
b Interiorof San Lorenzo detail) (p. I I 2 )
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
21/33
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
22/33
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
23/33
THE
ARCHITECTURE OF
BRUNELLESCHI
I I3
to the arch of
the naves is as 3 to 5;
therefore he two
archeshave a common
vanishingpoint and are
two succeeding
sectionsof the same visual
pyramid.
Thus the depth of the
chapels is transmitted
and
resolvedthrough the brick
vaultingof the extension
nto thearchesof the
centralnave. The
threewalls of
the small chapelsareframedby stronglymodelledcornices:thusthe walls fall
into the
background n three
directions,and the value
of depth
which cannot
be developed
within such small
dimensions s
condensed nto the
modelling
of the cornices.
In fact,
if one imaginesa
depth divided into equal
spaces, t
is clear that,
as we increase our
distance, the spaces
between member and
member
become, when
seen in perspective,
thicker and closer:
by making
the
modelling of the
members
more complex, that is,
by implicating the
intervalsor distances
with the quality of the
plastic objects, one
will obtain,
in
the actual form of the
disposalof the
members he
representation f un-
plumbable
depth. And how easy
it is to see, and how
easy it would be to
illustrate with precise
examples, the same
process at work in the
low relief
of Donatello.
The
successionof spaceswhich
is projected nto the
arcadesof the central
aisle is thus a
typicalperspective
uccessionrom the
horizon (the
end walls of
the
chapels) o the
foreground the
arch of the nave) In
Santo Spirito(P1. I )
the ratio
between the
arch of the chapels
and that of the nave is
of I to I:
and
the chapels are
reducedto the
concavityof niches.
So the lateral spaces
are
not graduated
perspectively,but directly
inserted and
articulated into
the archesof
the nave. Every
columnof the nave, to
which there corresponds
a half-column
n the side aisle,
thus stands out in its
plastic form, from the
concavity of
tsvo contiguous
niches. Not the parallel
planes of the centre
aisle, but the
plastic successionof
arches and columns
sums up the space of
the side aisles and of the chapels. In fact, if the artistin San Lorenzo has
given distinct sourcesof
light to the centre
aisle and the side aisles,
f, that is,
he
conceived them as
distinct and
co-ordinatedspatial entities,
in Santo
Spirito, the
side aisles have no
source of
light in themselves,
because their
spacesconstitutea single
plastic
organismwith the
colonnadesof the centre
aisle. If in San Lorenzo
the axis of the
centre aisle was simply
an axis of
symmetry for
the proportional
distribution of spatial
intervals, in Santo
Spirito it is the ground
plan of the
centralized vision. Space is
no longer
graphically
described n
geometrical orms,but realized
n the proportions-
metrical, chiaroscural
and luminous-of
plastic form.
So the column tself acquiresvalue as a member; t is no longerthe cesura
placed between
successive spatial intervals,
but as Alberti
would say a
thing that
occupies a place. In
its proportions, r in
the plasticquality of
its form t
resolvesall the
accidents f stress: ts value
in architecture ence-
forth s that of a
protagonistof space, as is that
of the human form
n painting
and sculpture.
The relation
between the emergenceof
the
columns and the
concavityofthe niches n
Santo
Spirito s in fact,
plasticallyand luministically,
a typically
Masacciesque elation.
Niches are thus the
spatial Leitmotif f
the later works of
Brunelleschi.
But
it is not a
question of
chiaroscuralor atmospheric
values, of a mass of
void
in oppositionto a
mass of fullness. In
Santo Spirito a
window breaks
the continuityof the chiaroscuro f the curvedsurface:the nichesin the but-
8/10/2019 Argan Brunelleschi
24/33
GIULIO
CARLO
ARGAN
I4
tresses
of the
lantern
and
those
in the
Rotonda
are
also
open
so as
to
avoid
a
pictorial
effect
of
atmosphere.
If,
in fact,
the
spatial
interval
betweentwo
members
s
plastically
expressed
n
the
actual
modelling
of the
members
he
space
enclosed
between
those
two
cannot be
indefinite:
the
curve
of the
niche
gives a senseof indefinitespace, of somethingbeyondthe horizon,of the sky.
In this
sense
t is a
development
of the
conception
of the
plane
as
a
representa-
tion
of
space,
that
is as
a
synthesis
of
depth
and
surface.
It
is
clear
that a
complete
representation f
space
cannot
admit a
dis-
tinction
between
the
space
internal and
the
space
external
to the
building:
hence
that
reciprocal
integrationof
internal
and
external
which
we
have
already
noted
in the
Pazzi
Chapel,
which
was
provided
for
in the
original
plan
of
Santo
Spirito,
which
is
fully
realized in
the
open
architecture
of the
lantern
and
which is,
above
all, the
central
problem
n
the
long
constructive
meditations
on
the
dome
of
Santa
Maria
del
Fiore.
The
building
is
now
conceived as
a
pure
structure
which
inserts
tself
into
empiric
spatiality
and
proportions t, or reduces t to perspective pace: likeearlyexercisesn paint-
ing,
the
building
is an
instrument
of
knowledge,
he
instrument
hat
creates
perspective.
In
more
general
terms,
the
building
is the
instrument
which,
through
the
rationalityof
its
processof
construction,
ransforms
confused
and
unlimited
reality
into
clear
and
ordered
nature.
By this
same
process
the
mediaeval
mechanica,
hich
had
reached
its
loftiest
expression