With this prejudiced characterization Giorgio Vasari begins his account of the life of Paolo Uccello, Florentine Painter; in his celebrated biographical book The Lives of the Artist. For Vasari, although certainly self-opinionated and somehow predisposed by the “styles” of his own time, Paolo was a somehow misguided inventive genius still worthy to be included in the illustrious list of Italian artists he compiled. His characterization of Paolo, which as one reads his account turns into a love/hate relationship with the artist, springs in part from the Vasari’s own humanist upbringing in the High Renaissance when the system of thought in relationship to art based on humanist principles that was in its infancy in the mid Quattrocento (when Paolo was working) was by then widely established. Vasari’s problem with Paolo lies at the very root of his own time and place, in which “good” artistic creation is solely reserved for humanist subjects such as figures and nature which were meant to reinforce the central role of man in humanist thought and therefore in Renaissance times. So it is because Paolo’s obsession with “the uncertain” like his good friend Donatello (the sculpturor) calls his subject of exploration in an anecdote[2] (referring to the perspective technique and also to his subject matter of the mazzocchi), why Vasari finds him to be difficult to the point of being almost dangerous. He expresses this feeling by trying to make Paolo an example of “what not to do” relating his choices as an artists with the misfortunes of his personal life. Therefore it is this obsession with a different subject matter (not figures or animals) and with his choice of technique (the Perspective) that Vasari found problematic and that I particularly find very interesting in regards to Paolo’s work. His single minded determination to be concerned with the uncertain of an unexplored technique of representation and his unorthodox choice of subjects for his own private experimentation, is what has gain him a shift in appreciation in modern times and which paradoxically, is the same reason why his contemporaries and later on Vasari himself would have a hard time understanding and therefore superficially interpreting or simply dismissing, not his style or technique which are flawless, but Paolo’s very own idea of what painting could be.
It is surprisingly enough that Vasari’s impression of Paolo’s work was not based on the most important commission of paintings the artists created in Florence (for he does not mention them in his book but only references some battle scene painted for the Bartolini family[3]) and from which a clear insight into his style, technique, composition and also to his great obsession is evident. Moreover, these paintings could be viewed as a possible synthesis of Paolo’s own experiments with the current flows of his own time and could have been a seen (possibly by Vasari, allowing for a better characterization of the Paolo’s career) as a threshold crossing between the two quite different styles he so fierce fully tried to command. This series of paintings are the triptych of the Rout of San Romano currently in the Uffizi in Florence, the National Art Gallery in London and the Louvre in Paris. In this paper I will try to explain the history of the paintings in both political and artistic matters and somehow try to tie them to the overall character and idiosyncratic personally of Paolo whose art was always subordinate to.
The history of the panels, meaning their dating, chronological sequence, additions, original placement and narrative story have a complex history and many interpretations and have been the subject of countless articles and books that contradict each other to an almost extreme result. With such a large amount of work to choose from, I will try to offer a concise history of the paintings based on passed research done dealing with the physical evidence at hand of the paintings themselves and other sources from around the time of the commission.
The Rout of San Romano cycle is composed of three paintings (a triptych) that depict two military battles. The panels now exhibited in the Uffizi, the National Art Gallery and the Louvre were commissioned by Cosimo de Medici and are thought to represent the battle of San Romano, a critical victory over the Sienese troops on June 1, 1432, although the Louvre panel has been also identified as a portrayal of the battle of Anghiari[4] that took place on June 29, 1440 over the Milanese army (this attribution is an speculation). The two panels in the Uffizi and National Art Gallery Florence London
The fact that all panels have additions of some kind has pointed critics to assume that they we originally in another location other than the Palazzo Medici on Via Lacra in which the inventory of 1492 places them in the ground floor on the supposed “chamera terrene” of Lorenzo de Medici. The Louvre panels has extensive additions that seem to be done in the same style and technique as the original panel, making it possible to think that Paolo himself did these additions when the panel were moved from their original location in an earlier Medici residence to the new Medici Palace designed by Michelozzo. It is therefore because of these additions that have the same type of technique and style found in the Louvre panel but absent in other two panels that has prompted art historians to date the Louvre panel as the earlier of the three, not only because of the additions present suggesting it to the only panel completed before the Medici family moved to the new Medici Palace and the panel had to the refitted to the wall of the so call “camera di Lorenzo” , but also to the stylistic differences that point the panel to the dated from at least around 1444 comparing it to other of Paolo’s works of the same period such as the so-called prophets on the clock of Florence cathedral of 1443.
Therefore the paintings must have been commissioned after Cosimo de Medici returned from his exile in from Venice around 1434 and after his friend Niccolo da Tolentino’s death in 1435, the commander depicted in the London panel who was in charge of the securing the victory in the battle of San Romano. The panels were then commission by 1435 as a careful orchestrated act on the part of Cosimo to associate himself with the figure of Tolentino who was very popular in Florence
The reason why the original location of the paintings has become such a controversial subject goes beyond the possibility of creating an accurate time frame for the dating of the pieces. They are also significant because they were commissioned my Cosimo the Medici as a shrewd act of propaganda to reinforce his influence over Florence and promote his family’s public image and also because they were placed in a very important place in the palace, what was the center of Medici hospitality for their friends and patrons, and would have been seen by all who came to visit creating an instant relationship between the famous hero of the battle that was beloved and admired by all and the Medici family. For this purpose, Cosimo’s hiring of Paolo was not merely accidental, since he had already proven himself an effective propaganda artist for closely the same purpose in the fresco he had done a few years earlier in 1436 in the Duomo in honor of Sir John Hawkwood, a famous English condottiere who had fought for the Florentines. So the political aspects of the commission of the Rout of San Romano seemed to have been verified by Cosimo di Medici himself in his selection of Paolo as a painter for such an important and historically charged work.
The 3 paintings in stylistic terms have differences and similarities. As stated before the Louvre panel has been dated from around the years earlier than 1444 and the Uffizi and National Gallery panels from about the earlier 1450’s based on stylistic differences and comparisons with other surviving works by Paolo.
The Louvre panel’s size is approximate in the size as the other two paintings, measuring 5 feet 10 inches by 10 feet 4 inches scale but its overall composition is strikingly different than the two others.. The figures appear more naturalistic, meaning that the lack the stiffing quality that is present on the other two paintings. The bodies of both the animals and the figures are elongated and their expressions have an intensity that is lacking in the other two panels. Also an increasing attention to detail is seen in the armor and helmets on the heads of the soldiers in the upper right corner, signaling that this is an earlier work than the other two in which Paolo seems to have tried to paint in the mode “academic” as his contemporaries were doing.
Another aspect to point out in relation to the Louvre painting is Paolo’s preoccupation with the problems associated with one point perspective. This is evident in the drastic foreshortening on the two horses of the right side who are seen from behind and of the central black who is galloping towards the viewer. There are no objects marking grid lines that are representative of perspective orthogonals as in the latter panels, which means that the composition and figures tend subordinate the real objective that he is trying to experiment with, which is the central perspectival composition. Finally, probably the most significant difference between this painting and the other is found in the scale of the figures and the absence of background ambient, which makes the excessive amount of detail that he has introduced in the foreground become more evident. Therefore the Louvre panel focuses his attention on the foreground while trying to introduce elements that play with Paolo’s obsession with deep space and perspective (such as the foreshortening of the horses and the receding arrangement of the helmets to the right), but while these playfull interventions are accurate they failed to create an overall sense of depth because of the lack of background and foreground relationship.
The two later paintings, dating from around the early 1450’s were carried out between 10 to 15 years after the Louvre panel[6], while Paolo was detained from painting since he did not have the dimensions of the room in the new Medici Palace that was under construction in which the unfinished triptych will be placed. The painting technique used in them is tempera on panel, and combined with the restoration techniques that Paolo used later on to enlarge the Louvre panel, some experts have determined that they must have been considered traditional and conservative by Quattrocento Florence standards since they were techniques frequently used in the Trecento paintings. This is a significant observation since any close examination of Paolo’s work will reveal dichotomies such as this one. It appears that in his desire to solely be concentrated in perfecting his perspective studies, he must have abandoned all interest in other aspects of painting, such as the use of the avant-garde techniques of his time, the careful representation of figures, and the compositional character of his time.
Therefore after years of pause following the completion of the first panel of the Battle of San Romano he is directed by the Medici to continue with the work, which to any artist implies a revaluation of their own pass work of the same type. He examines what he has done in the Louvre panel some 10 years ago, he recapitulates on his present studies, he realizes he has only but one objective in mind,….and then he takes a stand. The results are revolutionary.
Everything in these two paintings is a fabrication derived from his single minded obsession. Gone are all precise and detailed naturalistic elements, which in turn represent a conscious exclusion of all ethical and intellectual concepts of painting found in the Renaissance age. He abandons all traditional ways of natural representation and is taken over by his desire to create a painting that is carried through and solved using the rules of perspective. It is a tour de force in which he is so engulfed in his experimentation that he purposely ignores accurately portraying the subjects or components in the midst of the geometrical world he has created.
Physical rules are also ignored. Broken lances, shields, bodies of soldiers have fallen on the ground in accordance to an Albertian model of geometry. In both panels we come across a one point perspective grid created with the debris of the battle. In both paintings, but more significally in the London
The first way in which the signifies his desire to make perspective the central idea behind the work is the one we have already talked about, in which the uses the fallen remains of the battle as indications or grid lines of the overall composition which is a one point perspective grid. This way of stressing his choice is not subtle by any means and it requires a strong commitment to what he believes should be emphasized. Furthermore it would have been a more than enough obvious clue to bring his point across. But for Paolo this was certainly not enough, and to me here lies the beauty of this painting, in its desire to take a simple idea to the extreme.
He horses in the Uffizi panel form the next clue to his desire of presenting a clear idea of what the painting is about in personal terms to him. We observe 5 horses in the painting: on white on center, one blue at each side of the white horse laying on the ground, one red horse at each side of each blue horse and another white horse at each side at the end. At first glance we notice that the horses are paired in color at each side of the central white horse reinforcing a clear center point in the painting. Aside from that we also notice that the horses are paired not only in their color, but also in their posture, with the two at left size facing us, the two at the right galloping away and the two blue ones at each side of the central white horse in the floor. These blue horses have alternating postures which contrast with the horses in their side of the painting and match the ones at the opposite side. Meaning that at the left side of the painting the blue horse in the ground is shown from the bottom/back like the standing horses on the left side, while the other horses that are standing on the right side are shown from the front.
This play with the horses is done for a very specific reason. We see these horses in matching color and opposite postures on each side of the central white horse, whose position is being reinforced and signaled by the placement of the other horses around it. Then we discovered that this is not done solely as compositional technique but as a reinforcement of Paolo’s ideas on perspective. The reason the central white horse is reinforced by the other at its side in manner of color and posture, leading the eye of the spectator to that white horse as soon as he looks at the painting is done to accentuate the converging vanishing point of the one point perspective grid on the floor with the lances and bodies, which is located in the eye of the central white horse. His idea was to create a compositional framework that worked as an aid to further bring his point across, thus creating another way in which the overall geometrical perspective present in the panel could be recognized more efficiently.
The other clues Paolo employs to aid his purpose are very personal in relationship the artist himself and significant in judging him as someone who was, as Varasi pointed out “intoxicated with perspective”[7]. He many representation of the mazzocchi found in the painting at first glace do not seem odd since it was a typical head gear of the time use in Florence and can be found in many other paintings by other artists of the period. But it becomes extremely significant once we learn of Paolo’s complex studies of the mazzocchi in perspective. It seems like he was trying to also show his skills in drawing these complex figures and also as some kind of signature for it would have been evident to anyone that knew him that these were his work. Ontop of that the mazzocchi represents for Paolo an intense exercise in what he finds joy in doing without the compromise of patronage and an added storyline to his work, so it is plausible to speculate why he introduce them in such a detailed way the two later panels, as an act of trying to bring the paintings to a certain level of abstraction in relationship to the past work of the artist.
The Battle of San Romano is also an exercise above all in foreshortening, in which Paolo excelled in not really capturing the detailed appearance of the horse but succeeded in portraying its distance with respect to the spectator in ways that must have been very influential at the time. In the use of foreshortening, he is also able to make peace with critics, such a Vasari and other probably of his time, which complained of his lack of attention to figures. But then again he does this to a half extent since the figures are kept to a minimum of detail and the depth of the space that they occupy becomes crucial in revealing their overall form.
The Battle of San Romano triptych should be considered the quintessential work in which to judge Paolo’s character in relationship to painting, but not necessarily his technique and style. It is a work that symbolizes a revaluation of his past work and a step forward to a synthesis of his experimentation as a painter. It is also a deeply personal work in which academic or stylistic currents or trends are overlooked to achieve something that is timeless in its conceptual undertaking. It is a powerful painting by modern artists, who was filling to take chances and subordinate the art of his times to his own idiosyncratic view.
“La bella prospettiva” guided him well.
[2] Anecdote recounted by Vasari in The Lives of the Artists about a conversation between Donatello and Paolo concerning the perspective drawing of the mazzocchi.
[3] The Bartolini family battle scenes have sometimes been classified as the battle of San Romano which Cosimo de Medici loved so much that hehad them removed and put on Palazzo Medici by force. This is only one of the many stories around these paintings and it is the explanation that the National Gallery of Art in London
[4] The supposed identification of the Louvre corresponding to the battle of Anghiari was done by Giulia M. Lessanutti based on stylistic differences and armour details of the time after 1440.
[5] From Volker Gebhardt article Some problems in the reconstruction of Uccello’s Rout of San Romano’s cycle published on The Burlington Magazine Vol 133 No. 1056, Mar 1991
[6] Gebhardt, Volker. Some problems with the reconstruction of Uccello’s Rout of San Romano cycle.
[7] Vasari Giorgio The Lives of the Artists
Bibliography
1-Hartt and Wilkins. History of Renaissance Art: Painting, Scupture , Architecture.
Prentice Hall, Fith Edition 2003
2-DelGesso, Emilio, Florentine and Italian Artists in Rome Rome
3-Vasari, Giorgio, The Lives of the Artists
Oxford World’s Classics, 1998
4-Joannides, Paul. Paolo Uccelo’s Rout of San Romano: a new observation
The Burlington Magazine, Vol 131, No 1032 Mar 1989 p214-216
5- Gebhardt, Volker. Some problems with the reconstruction of Uccello’s Rout of San Romano cycle.
The Burlington
6-Lessanutti, Giulia M. A triptych by Paolo Uccello depicts two battles- both portrayals commissioned as propaganda.
Military History, Oct 2000, page 20.