Most of us would agree with the description of
European museums given by Mary Sheriff: sequential rooms dedicated to different
national schools at different historical moments. We find the common
chronological division Middle Ages/early Italian Renaissance/Baroque on one
level while the Islamic, Chinese and Latin America arts located on a different
floor - if not in an entirely different building (Sheriff 2010). This
problematic aspect of display finds a parallel in the way the arts tend to be
studied: great attention is paid to individual masters, national developments
and local patronage.
Since the ‘50s cultural studies have been trying to overcome this
strict classification by focusing on cultural transfer and cultural exchange. In
1949 Fernand Braudel discussed in his book Mediterranean
the importance of "cultural frontiers" stressing the idea of us/them,
the encountering of the other, and the symbolic boundaries that resist mapping.
Later on cultural historians turned to the study of material culture –
especially food, clothes, art – showing how these elements reveal cultural
codes and identity (Burke 2004). The study of cultural transfer therefore moves
towards a theory of cultural hybridity, sharpening awareness and sensitising people
to the necessity of cultural variety (Roeck 2007. Farago 2010).
Europe is indeed rich in its cultural variety,
consisting of countries different one from the other on many levels. Nevertheless
Europe is also highly cosmopolitan due to its diverse countries linked through webs
of political, economic, religious, and social ties (Belozerskaya 2002). Cultural
encounters between these distinct identities generated cultural translation/cultural
exchange that encompassed several domains from language and religion to cuisine,
fashion and the arts (Burke 2004). In the past few years numerous studies have
been devoted to the interaction and exchange between European countries and, in
art history, this led to a reconsideration of the Renaissance in the light of
the interaction occurred between Italy and – to mention some – the Netherlands,
Russia, the Balkan and Asia (see contributes in Roodenburg 2007).
Transfer and globalism have also constituted the topic of recent academic conferences
world-wide such as Harvard’s Ornament as Portable Culture. Between globalism a locatism; Edinburgh’s From Influence to Translation: Art of the Global Middle Ages; and London forthcoming Fashioningthe Early Modern at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
When exploring interaction between different entities it is
necessary to take into account encounters on a larger scale such as those
between Europe and the New World in the age of discovery. Scholarly output
tried to elucidate and explore the dynamic processes that influenced European artist’s
creativity and that, consequently, shaped the visual arts after 1492 (Sheriff
2010. Farago 2010). While it is easier to recognize mutual exchanges between Europe
and Latin America (or Asia) from mid-sixteenth century onwards, exchange “practices”
in late fifteenth century are still hazy. However some considerations can still
be drawn regarding Florentine art.
Piero di Cosimo’s series
of panels said to represent the “early history of man” (The Hunt; The Return from the Hunt; The Forest Fire; the stories of
Vulcan) share common features,
representing fights, wild men and primitive scenes (Figure 1). Speculations
have been made on whether a possible connection could be established between
these panels and the geographical discoveries undertook in the fifteenth
century by navigators such as Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci and Paolo Toscanelli
(Brown 2010; Geronimous 2006). Explorers’ travel accounts and letters (of which
illustrated editions appeared, Figure 2) were in fact enriched with the
descriptions of alien lands, savages and barbaric episodes. Could have these
written text influenced the imagination of Florentine patrons and artists? Positive
answer. Bellicose, primitive scenes, monstrous animals and mythical figures
such as tritons, satyrs and centaurs can be found not only in Piero di Cosimo’s
panels but also elsewhere in Florence: in the frieze decorating Scala’s urban
villa in Borgo Pinti; in the painted architecture of Botticelli’s Calumny of Apelles; and in Giuliano da Sangallo’s decorative
frieze design for a fireplace executed for Giuliano Gondi; (Geronimous 2006. Meltzoff 1987).
Figure 1. Piero di Cosimo, A Hunting Scene (NY, Met)
Figure 2. Woodcut from A.Vespucci Mundus Novus (1505)
It seems therefore plausible
to link the primitive (negative?) depictions that circulated in the last decade
of the century to the fights and invasions related to the geographical
discoveries. The presence of these images however makes us
wonder if, and to what extent, these representations could also be connected to
the unbalancing changes Florence was experiencing locally at the time: the Medici exile;
Savonarola’s apocalyptic preaching (Weinstein 1970); and the descent of Charles
VIII. In the last decade of the century wild men, fauns and satyrs appeared in
pageants across the city (Pieri 1988) while in ad outside Florence people
started to fear what was defined as mostro
(beyond Florence “disturbing” images and performances took place in Venice
where later on, from 1500, representations depicted hell populated by devil-like
presences. See Aikema 2001). The use of this word is recorded in connection to
Charles VIII, seen more as a monster than a man (Niccoli 1990), and to the
birth of baby-monsters (Bec 1988). When seen in the light of Florence’s
historical circumstances, these examples may help to understand why the
proliferation of savages and monster-like images found some fertile ground in the
Tuscan city and, more generally, in Italy. Political events, apocalyptic prophecies,
geographical discoveries and encounters with the Other contributed to shape Florentines’
imaginary world and the arts. Artists assimilated new ideas and transported them
in re-adopted classical modes of expression (fauns, centaurs) embodied with new
social meanings based in the life of the present (Dempsey
2012).
