Burckhardt’s argument that the “different tendencies and manifestations of private life… thriving in the fullest vigour and variety” were developed in this period and that the private man was “indifferent to politics, and busied partly with serious disputes, partly with the interests of a dilettante” emerged in this period. He saw Italy as beginning to “swarm with individuality” at the close of the thirteenth century and a “thousand figures meet us each in his own special shape and dress” once the “ban on human personality” was dissolved. Dante was “the most national herald of his time” because of the “wealth of individuality that he set forth.” The breakdown of barriers of race, nationality and family occurred as people stopped classifying themselves according to those criteria. Dante, the first son of Florence said “my country is the whole world” and Ghiberti said that the learned man “is nowhere a stranger”.
Burckhardt proves his thesis by claiming that the number of “universal men” rose in the fifteenth century, and although he was unsure whether they consciously developed their “spiritual and material existence,” several managed to attain as perfect a being as was possible, given the innate failings of humanity.
Burckhardt has been throroughly analysed and attacked since his publication, mostly because Burckhardt relied on brilliant prose, argument construction and sweeping generalisations more than demonstration by examples. His arguments won him praise that soon turned to bitter criticism.
The idea that man had been unaware of himself is ridiculous. Even medieval man used the First Person Singular, and theologians working from Genesis knew that God had differentiated individuals one from another. Burckhardt’s individuals were different from their predecessors in that they possessed striking, unique personalities and an urge to better themselves. The first part of Burckhardt’s individual, the unique personality, has been dropped as the exaggerations of a historian radically revising conceptions of the past and trying to do too much.
The idea of man as a morally autonomous, emotive being possessive of will-power saw new developments in Quattrocento Italy, but the substantial foundations for these minor changes had been laid during the medieval period. What was new was the idea of personality depicting the actions, and possibly showing itself through the works and ideas, of the man. Burckhardt’s use of da Vinci and Alberti is perhaps a little naïve, as they were praised, not for being the personifications of the Renaissance man, as Burckhardt thought, but for being the exceptions.
Burckhardt’s theory lacks concrete examples and facts to support it, and it has all but been abandoned in its original form. The Renaissance did evolve a cult of the individual for western society. The modern quirk of valuing the art because of the artist, not because of its artistic value, is a Renaissance value.
Michelangelo and Pontormo made cults to their artistic vision and ability in the 1500s in making their art an expression of themselves. Bufalmacco was notably mocked by Franco Sachetti for his artistic gait and lifestyle, whilst Manetti claims that Brunelleschi’s muse was his way of life. Although Raphael, Masaccio and Giotto were straight-laced and conventional, such artists as Donatello, who destroyed pieces art when he failed to get a good enough price for it. This cult of such personae is seen as a sixteenth century innovation, but another facet of artistic indiviualism, the reemergence of the artistic temperament, was recorded by Vasari as occurring in the early fifteenth century and in a novelle by Sacchetti, an author writing in the late fourteenth century. I use the word reemergence as Pliny talks of Kallimachos “the Niggler” who spent ages fussing over the minutae of his work, Apollodorus “the Madman” who smashed work of his that he felt to be insufficient and Protegenes who ate only lupins steeped in water whilst engaged in a project. Despite such aged roots, the idea as it comes to us is a Renaissance phenomenon that was probably reintroduced by the humanists, as the coincidence of the dates of the reintroduction and the dates of the humanist hegemony would suggest. Many patrons saw innovative lifestyles as a means to innovative creations and tolerated, accepted or supported the artist’s quirks, and this connection of personality with the art produced is indeed a new innovation for the era. As da Vinci said “every painter paints himself”. The Bohemians may have been attempting merely to raise themselves above the norms of ‘good society’ and to show themselves to be of a different social class than their less ‘gifted’ peers, but even if this is the case, it is still an attempt at showing off a difference of personality that would have been important for an artist. By 1561, Cardanus saw painters as “fickle, of unsettled mind, melancholic, and changeable in their manners.” To use Pliny’s words, artists were seen as “queer fish.”
Vasari’s “Lives of the Artists” is a catalogue of bohemian artists, most of whom are given trite reasons for their brilliance. Although, he did give “nature” and “grace” credit for Desiderio da Settignano and Domenico Puligo, and surmised that “long implanted seeds” were the reason for Agostino and Agnolo of Siena’s creativity, he usually gave less vague reasons. Gaddo Gaddi, Vellano of Padua and Pisanello earned their talent and inspiration by copying their predecessors. Giuliano da Maiano was supported in his choice of vocation by his father, so giving him an edge. Exile enabled Starnina, Antonio Veneziano and Perugino to improve their portfolios, whilst Baccio da Montelupo won his talent through application. Alberti’s pensive use of artistic theory and Dosso’s study of art were both extolled. At the same time, Vasari notes how Andrea del Sarto, Fra Batolomeo and Rosso were discouraged by Michelangelo’s inimitable presence in their city of Rome, whilst copying masters hindered Uccello and Verrochio.
Later, Vasari explained the prevalent belief that an artist’s ability sprung directly from his motivation and situation, so introducing the idea of individuality. Simone, Lippo Memmi, Lorenzo di Bicci and Don Bartolomeo were all praised for the way that their good characters shone through their art whilst the art of Dosso and Battista Dossi suffered for lack of an interesting personality. Giottino, Franciabigio and Donatello took the artistic temperament to a new height whilst Raffaello da Montelupo’s diffidence and passivity failed his art. The devotion required, in Vasari’s eyes, to art meant abstinence in order to allow the artist’s outpourings to be unchecked by other considerations, whilst the creations needed to be coaxed from the artists by exhortation and encouragement – a motivational technique. The importance of the individual’s vision is clear when one learns of Michelangelo’s secrecy about his work, and his incredible depression, mood swings and three day work binges.
Wittkower challenges the emergence of artistic individuality in this period by noting that the architect who built Pisa cathedral, Rainaldus, not only recorded his on name but also recorded that he thought his work was “remarkable and excellent”. Lanfrancus of Modena calls himself clarus, doctus and aptus. The guild system which emerged during the XIIIth century made artists de facto craftsmen with controlled training and workdays. Coulton believes that the guilds diminished individualism, whilst Doren denies such a link.
The importance of motivation and situation was as important to Vasari for artists as for scholars and poets. Contemporaries and classical sources saw poets as a theologian and seer, as he used the eyes of his mind to penetrate deeper truths. Creativity was an asset belonging to the poet: a change in direction from the poet inspired by God’s grace to the poet inspired generally. This creativity was studied in biography after biography of poets. The creative minds were seen as sources of wisdom for patrons, readers or admirers to follow. The Renaissance was the era when the powerful students of the learned bringers of wisdom became famous for their adherence to the philosophies of their adherent sources. This was set down as early as in Plutarch’s Lives. The philosophy was interspersed with illustrations of illustrious followers of the philosophy: the idea of virtue was no longer just as simple as following biblical ethics for a fifteenth century Italian. The importance of following the life suggested by the fashionable philosophies was vital for keeping up appearances and was characterised for the most part by the pursuit of virtue for its own sake.
The era leant to man a great non-Christian (although not un-Christian) set of behavioural norms sharply different to the norms known to Christian Europe. The Renaissance was important not in creating individualism, so much as in recognising the importance of a concept of virtue by which everyone could be held accountable and the recognition of the importance of character in creativity which the humanists and artists discovered. The term “Individualism” is Victorian and in itself assigns too great an importance to the Renaissance – another concept itself not described by a contemporary term. Although I am contrary to much of the revision of Burckhardt in that I would not claim that socio-economic pressures caused the awakening what little concept of individuality was born or developed in this era, I would support an awakening to the role of the individual in artistic talent, and moreover, I would support the idea of an awakening of the concept of humanity as a group of independent beings.
