Baroque Reading Response

The writings of Bellori and Baldinucci reflect a shift in how art and artists were understood from the Renaissance to the Baroque period. Bellori’s “Idea” offers a metaphysical ideal of beauty, while Vasari privileged historicism in art. Each author sees Michelangelo differently, according to the particular moment and the particular emphasis of the art world. This response compares these perspectives and explores how Michelangelo contributed to molding Vasari’s and Baldinucci’s visions of the Renaissance: Baroque Reading Response.

Bellori’s “Idea”

Bellori’s ‘Idea’ is the hypothetical concept of perfect beauty in which artists strive to create a higher divine order rather than an imperfect nature. He believed that real art should not simply appear as imitation but should serve as an ideal of the visible world. Like creators, artists design to imagine an exemplary form that perfects upon the faults of nature.

Bellori emphasizes that artists form an example of superior beauty in their minds and, reflecting on it, improve upon nature until it is without fault of color or line. This means that art becomes a refined reflection of divine perfection.

Bellori’s hypothesis differs from that of Vasari, mainly in emphasis. For Vasari, the history and development of art involved a close study of technique. He believed that a form of imitation and repetition based on mastery of a canon of established techniques could only lead to the artistic transmission of the ideal. He admired how artists cultivated style by combining natural observation and technical craft.

Bellori, on the other hand, stressed ideal beauty as a product of the mind more than nature. For Bellori, the artist should emulate and surpass nature,  pursuing intellectual perfection rather than evolution over time. Vasari celebrated artistic genius in history; Bellori demanded adherence to a timeless, ideal standard shaped by divine and philosophical reflection.

Differing Portrayals of Michelangelo in the Writings of Vasari and Baldinucci

Giorgio Vasari and Filippo Baldinucci differ in their accounts of Michelangelo; however, they are influenced by the occurrences and intentions of the periods in which they lived and wrote. Vasari, writing in  Lives of the Artists in the 16th century, shows Michelangelo as an exemplary artist-genius. Vasari, writing in  Lives of the Artists in the 16th century, shows Michelangelo as an exemplary artist-genius. He is venerated not just as the unrivaled master of sculpture, painting, and architecture but also as the face of the ideal of the Renaissance.

In contrast, Baldinucci, who wrote in the 17th century, considers Michelangelo the seed of history. While acknowledging his greatness, Baldinucci emphasizes Michelangelo’s role in reviving the arts and enabling later figures, particularly Bernini, to flourish. Baldinucci thinks of Michelangelo as the restorer of classical ideals rather than the very pinnacle of artistic development. Continuity and influence are his concerns, directing attention instead to the Baroque as a natural development of the Michelangelo heritage.

In Vasari, Michelangelo is the Renaissance incarnate meaning, humanist values, divine afflatus, and extreme control of the visual arts. He is the supreme artist who fulfills the artistic voyage initiated in the preceding centuries. Michelangelo serves as Vasari to describe the cusp of the Renaissance, leading to clear but not perfect beauty and genius.

Baldinucci, on the other hand, presents Michelangelo as a catalyst who rekindles the arts and sets the stage for future brilliance through the return to classical antique forms and high style. Thus, for Baldinucci, Michelangelo defines the Renaissance more as a restorer of tradition than its crowning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Bellori and Vasari ’s theories illustrate the transition from the values of natural observation to those of ideal perfection. Their respective projections of Michelangelo witness this transformation. For Vasari he was the pinnacle of the Renaissance, to Baldinucci as its foundation. Together, they present Michelangelo as both a culmination and catalyst for the whole story of Western art.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

There are ten (10) required weekly reading responses short essays (12 points each; total of 120 points). These reading responses are low-stakes writing assignments that build off of the weekly lecture discussions, allowing students to delve deeper into a topic by reflecting on the assigned readings and analyzing an object from class. Papers are required to be a minimum of 500 words in length (single or double-spaced) in either Times New Roman or Arial font formatted to 8.5 x 11 inch paper with margins of 1 inch.

Baroque Reading Response