As the semester comes to a close, it is time to reflect on our experience in David Boffa’s excellent Renaissance art course. I think we can all agree on having been exposed to some truly beautiful art and great artists throughout the semester. On the other hand, I think we can all agree on having seen some less impressive art as well, some of which was, at least in my opinion, downright ugly.
Niccolo dell’Arca, Lamentation, ca. 1460, terra cotta figures, Bologna
While viewing ugly works of art like Niccolo dell’Arca’s Lamentation above was not at all an unpleasant experience – more humorous than anything, actually – they nevertheless left the lasting impression that the Italian Renaissance produced a mix bag of art, far removed from my initial impression of it as the greatest period in Western art. While it goes without saying that any period will produce art good and bad, created by different artists for different markets, some of the most canonical Renaissance artists such as Masaccio produced work that looks crude, blocky, and almost naïve in execution. The Tumblr blog “Ugly Renaissance Babies” testifies to the flawed formal qualities present in the works of even some of the greatest Renaissance masters, particularly those working before the High Renaissance in the early- and mid-fifteenth-century.
http://uglyrenaissancebabies.tumblr.com/
Why would anyone want to look at, or even study, ugly art? While that big question requires much more space than a blog post, I think it has something to do with the (rightful) notion that art is culturally specific. Art is not created in a vacuum, and is inspired and informed by the cultural and artistic traditions that surrounded it. The reason Masaccio’s art looks so crude compared to Michelangelo’s, for example, is because it was still the early fifteenth-century, the formative period of the canonical High Renaissance style.
Masaccio nevertheless has always been considered as a great, innovative artist based who influenced even Michelangelo (example below). Even though his figures were not exactly realistic, they were for their time, and his especially strong compositions had a profound impact on later Renaissance painters who improved on his attempts at naturalism. Certainly the study of Masaccio is of great historical interest even though his work looks strange to the modern eye.
Masaccio, Expulsion, ca. 1426-1428, fresco, Brancacci Chapel
Michelangelo, Expulsion, 1508-1512, fresco, Sistine Chapel
Some of this ugly art, however, was created by artists “outside” the canon. Niccolo dell’Arca and his Lamentation have indeed been written about, but not nearly as extensively as Masaccio or Michelangelo. I feel art historians tend to write on artists based on their obvious historical importance or the beauty of their work, the two often going hand in hand. However, when an artist has neither historical importance nor aesthetic interest, which is frankly the case with Niccolo dell’Arca, there seems little incentive to study his work.
How do you feel about ugly Renaissance art? Does Niccolo dell’Arca deserve to be studied? Can Renaissance art ever be ugly or “bad?” What is the ugliest Renaissance painting or sculpture? I’d like to hear your opinions.
Renaissance Reconsidered 
I don’t like to think that there is such a thing as intrinsically “good” or “bad” art. Like you said, all art is created for different markets. Looking at its reception in that market may be the closest thing we have to an objective evaluation of its quality. If an artist accomplished whatever he or she set out to do, the piece can be considered a success. Any further reflection on the quality of the piece becomes highly personal. That being said, there is a lot of Renaissance art that doesn’t appeal to me personally, even when compared only to other works from the same period. There are quite a few paintings that are considered to be some of the most wonderful pieces to come out of the Renaissance that I can say I really don’t care for. I can definitely say that I prefer Masaccio’s expulsion painting, and that I honestly am not a fan of Michelangelo’s version. To each their own!
Art is not just the finished work, but also the process. Even those well-known artists cannot be as skilled as they are without the practices during their early years. It is true that there are some art works might not fit today’s aesthetics, but those pieces have its own values. Some of those values come from social aspects, which reflect the demand of art from some classes during Renaissance. Lamentation by Niccolo dell’Arca is the example of art carrying social values. Different from Lamentation, Masaccio is the master that his works have been studied or referred by several artists throughout the history. Therefore, his work can be understood as an important step for helping future generations to improve their skill. By looking at Masaccio’s works, Maybe my opinion is too art historian style, but I would like to consider the values contained in those art works instead of just looking at whether it is “pretty” or “ugly”. In fact, art historians have focused too much on only the masters and their works, but art should never be separate from social, religion, culture and other influences. Therefore, the artists like Niccolo dell’Arca, or the art works like Lamentation should gather more attention. They also deserve more study, because these works reflect the social interest from middle or lower class. Most of the master pieces during Renaissance are supported by people from upper class that only present the interest of upper class. However, upper class only occupies a small group of population, which cannot represent the general social life.
What I was (trying) to pose with this post is the question whether art that isn’t particularly beautiful deserves to be studied. Because the ultimate job of the art historian is to interpret art for a larger audience, why would one study art that isn’t recognized as aesthetically appealing today?
I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot lately. I think I have decided that all art should be studied — if only because it helps to develop a broader understanding of the past than on focusing on a few respected masterpieces. I agree with derfuse’s point that everyone has different tastes: some may even love Niccolo dell’Arcas Lamentation group and may want to know more about it. If all Renaissance art historians are busy studying Michelangelo’s David and the Mona Lisa, than they would never get a chance to learn more about it.
Great responses! Thanks for your input. 🙂