Invenzione e Fantasia: The (Re)Birth of Imagination in Renaissance Art SHARON BAILIN Simon Fraser University ABSTRACT: The notion of imagination is central to our contemporary western conception of and valuing of art. Yet the conception of imagination upon which this valuing rests is based on certain assumptions about art-making and about persons. Imagination refers to the creation of an idea or artifact from the mind of the creator. That a work of art arises from the imagination of an artist is thus taken to mean that the work is a reflection of the person’s individuality, an authentic product of the artist’s inner being. As such is will be marked by originality since each person is unique. There is, moreover, a belief that external constraints on the imagination of the artist are inhibiting and that she should be free to express her visions or emotions without constraints. Historically, however, the centrality of imagination viewed in this way has been the product of gradual development. This paper examines one particularly important moment in this development, that is, the Renaissance in Italy. By examining the changes in the nature, practice, and conception of art during this period, the paper probes the changing assumptions about the connection between imagination and art. KEYWORDS: Renaissance, art, artist, imagination, creativity, originality, individuality, genius, naturalism, mimesis. Introduction The notion of imagination is central to our contemporary western conception of and valuing of art. Yet, historically its centrality has been the product of a gradual development. In this paper I examine one particularly important moment in this development, that is, the Renaissance in Italy. By examining the changes in the nature, practice, and conception of art during this period, I hope to probe the changing assumptions about the connection between imagination and art. Interchange, Vol. 36/3, 257-273, 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s10780-005-6865-3
C Springer 2006 258 SHARON BAILIN Posing the Problem Our contemporary valuing of imagination in art rests on certain assumptions about art-making and about persons. Imagination, whatever the historical and philosophical vagaries of its use, seems to refer to the conjuring up of what is not present, the creation of an idea or artifact from the mind of the creator. That a work of art arises from the imagination of an artist is thus taken to mean that the work is a reflection of the person’s individuality, an authentic product of the artist’s inner being. As such it will be marked by originality since each person is unique. There is, moreover, a belief that external constraints on the imagination of the artist are inhibiting and that she should be free to express her vision or emotions. Imaginative works are genuine products of the artist’s imagination. In the Middle Ages and the early stages of the Renaissance, these assumptions did not play a significant role. Art was not seen as the manifestation of something within the artist. Rather, artistic activity had to do with the making of purely functional artifacts. Painters and sculptors were viewed, and viewed themselves as craftsmen whose skill was acquired by apprenticeship to a master and immersion in the tradition. Individuality was not a significant feature of pre- and early Renaissance art-making: all artisans were members of guilds and the creation of art was usually a collective process and more often than not anonymous. Nor were art works seen as the manifestation of individual self-expression. Rather, art was made in response to the demands of patrons, who also determined the specific content and imagery. In the words of Hauser: In the art of the early Renaissance … the starting point of production is to be found mostly not in the creative urge, the subjective self-expression and spontaneous inspiration of the artist, but in the task set by the customer. (cited in Csikszentmihály, 1990, p. 204) Turner summarizes the situation as follows: The Florentine art object was made to fulfill a purpose, whether devotional, civic, or domestic; objects were not usually thought of as ends in themselves, but rather as implicated in the various rituals of daily life; the providers of these objects were craftsmen, rigorously trained and subject to professional controls, expected to produce a predictable product; and mastery in a social realm, not genius or personal idiosyncrasy, was the order of the day. (Turner, 1997, p. 49) INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 259 Art-making was not about individuality, originality, freedom or selfexpression. The arts were about the works, not about the artist. During the course of the Renaissance the arts underwent a dramatic transformation. Medieval art involved highly conventionalized portrayals of Christian archetypes using accepted religious symbols and iconography. The figures were, moreover, depicted on a flattened plane with little attempt at naturalism. Physically accurate depiction was not the goal. Painting was, rather, focused on formal idealization and spiritual meaning. Recording visual details was not valued as appearances were seen as accidental temporal manifestations, not reflective of the fundamental underlying reality. Naturalistic space was, in fact, renounced during the Middle Ages due to the persistent Platonic belief that perspective was a form of deceit. The Renaissance saw a fundamental change in the nature of artistic representation, away from this Gothic idealism and toward an astonishing naturalism which allowed for unprecedented expressive possibilities. Concurrent with these changes in the content of the visual arts, there emerged an altered conception of artistic activity and a new role for the painter (sculptor or architect) – that of artist. Art-making was elevated from its previous position as manual labour and granted new respect and prestige. Individual artists were becoming recognized and sought after, and were granted more autonomy. And terms like invention, imagination, and genius were starting to be applied to their work. This tendency reached its culmination with the art historian (and artist) Vasari’s virtual deification of several contemporaneous artists. He writes of Brunelleschi, for example, as a genius sent from heaven to renew the art of architecture (Vasari, 1965/1568, p. 133). Of Leonardo he says, “everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human art” (p. 255). And he describes how the ruler of heaven gave Michelangelo every artistic gift “so that everyone might admire and follow him as their perfect exemplar in life, work, and behaviour and in every endeavour, and he would be acclaimed as divine” (p. 325). Why did the nature and practice of the arts change in this significant way during this time period? And how and why did the conception of the artist and his work change as well? The popular answer to these questions is that the era was blessed with a few geniuses, individuals of extraordinary talent, creativity, and insight who effected these changes through the power of their imagination, a view preshadowed by Vasari’s’ comment. Boorstin aptly summed up this perspective: A legacy from the Renaissance, the belief in genius, something rarer than skill or talent, would transform the arts. It has taken us 260 SHARON BAILIN from respect for the trained talent, manipulating the experience that is out there for all to know, to awe before the uniquely inspired self. (Boorstin, 1992, p. 407) I shall argue, however, that the situation is much more complex than this description would imply. There was, in fact, a great variety of factors involved in these changes in arts, factors interconnected in a complex web of relationships. Rather than seeing imagination as a specifiable faculty which suddenly flourished during the Renaissance and which enabled certain individuals to effect radical changes, it might be more accurate to think of the concept of imagination and related concepts such as invention and genius as constructed and transformed in the process of these changes. Nevertheless, the meaning of and assumptions behind these terms were still quite distant from how we tend to understand these concepts today. It would take the Romantics to effect the transformation of sensibility which now places individuality, originality, freedom, and self-expression at the forefront of artistic practice. But that is a story for another time. Factors The factors contributing to the transformation of the arts were numerous and various, but may be broadly categorized into contextual (political and economic), intellectual, artistic, and social. Contextual One important factor in the flourishing of the arts had to do with the economy. The economic boom in the various Italian city-states (most notably Florence in the 15th century) generated considerable wealth that could be spent on art. A well-educated and cultured elite with a growing taste for art works to adorn their lives and enhance their status provided an insatiable demand for art and the patronage to support its production. The flurry of artistic activity and resulting innovations attracted increasing numbers of individuals interested in engaging in art production and this density of talent and artistic activity created a climate which promoted excellence and a unity of artistic criteria (Barzun, 2000). The new commercial activities and capitalist aspirations of the citystates also had an important impact on the arts. It promoted pragmatist and materialist attitudes which drew people from the exclusively spiritual focus of Medieval society toward more worldly interests. This was still a profoundly Christian society, but the aggressive individualism, materialism and moral relaxation brought about by the new economy were in tension with traditional Christian teachings and INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 261 values. The attempt to adapt and to reconcile old and new values resulted in a turning to Antiquity and the ideas of Ancient Greece and Rome, a move which “changed the intellectual and artistic landscape” (Turner, 1997, p. 33). Moreover, the new emphasis on the individual profoundly influenced how the artist came to be viewed. This was also an age of exploration. The voyages of individuals such as Columbus, Magellan, Vespucci, and Vasco da Gama were bringing to light the fact that there was more to the world than what had previously been known, and exposure to new phenomena, ideas and ways of life served as a prompt to new ways of thinking. Intellectual/Philosophical One of the most important developments of the Renaissance was the emergence of humanism. The term humanism has it roots in humanitas, or humane studies, in contrast to judicial or theological studies. Humanist scholarship was characterized by a focus on antiquity, a rediscovery of the thought and achievements of ancient Greece and Rome. It did not refer to the non-divine as does our contemporary notion of secular humanism. This was a philosophy and a culture still very much rooted in Christianity. Rather, the humanist scholars looked to the ancients for models for living and ways to reconcile Christian values with the changing conditions and the new ideas that were rapidly proliferating. Humanist scholarship was rooted in the heritage of classical antiquity and was principally responsible for its revival. It focused on the reading of Greek and Latin authors and was constituted by the study of grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy. The humanists made substantial contributions to the rediscovery and dissemination of Latin and Greek texts, aided significantly by the advent of print. This accessibility of knowledge contrasted greatly with the ideal of specialized knowledge and secrecy perpetuated by the guilds. The humanists also made significant contributions to literary production in the form of letters, speeches, historiography, poetry, and philosophy; and to humanist education. One of the struggles for artists in the course of the Renaissance was to have art activity recognized as having a place among the humanities (or liberal arts) rather than being seen simply as manual labour. In terms of philosophical views, humanist scholarship was marked by a greater historical awareness than previously and some sense of progress and the contribution of the individual. Humanist studies 262 SHARON BAILIN placed a new emphasis on “man and his dignity” (Kristeller, 1990 p. 16). A particularly striking statement of this perspective is presented in Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the dignity of man in which he has God address Adam as follows: The nature of all other beings is limited and constrained within the bounds of laws prescribed by Us. Thou, constrained by no limits, in accordance with thine own free will, in whose hand We have placed thee shalt ordain for thyself the limits of thy nature. We have set thee at the world’s center that thou mayest from thence more easily observe whatever is in the world. (cited in Taylor, 1989, p. 200) This statement, and others like it, offer a very different view of the place of human beings in the cosmos than that embedded in the Medieval Christian world-view. They seem to indicate some notion of free will and may be thought to offer a relatively modern understanding of human agency. Yet it is important to recognize that the idea of freedom is still understood within the context of a fixed cosmic order. As Taylor explains: The order of being is still a geocentric and hierarchical one and man’s power to assume any nature is the power either to debase or exalt himself. ... Man’s ends are still set by a cosmically realized order of good. (Taylor, 1987, p. 200) The new freedom allotted to human beings in much Renaissance scholarship also emphasized a role for man in completing God’s creation. This role provided both a justification for the arts and a sanction for artistic innovation. This new recognition of human productive powers was, however, limited in scope and still quite distant from contemporary notions of human agency in creating. A central aspect of the rediscovery of antiquity was archeological. Attention was suddenly paid to the incredible wealth of physical artifacts from antiquity, artifacts which had been ignored during the Middle Ages because they were seen as remnants of paganism and therefore to be despised rather than admired. Classical works began to be copied and elements incorporated into the work of Renaissance artists and architects in an attempt to reconstitute the past in the present. Moreover, careful study of ancient statues and ruins resulted in the rediscovery of many principles and rules of art and architecture, and the role played by this rediscovery in Renaissance art cannot be overestimated. As one example, Brunelleschi’s meticulous measurements of Roman domes were an important influence on his design for the dome of the cathedral in Florence (King, 2000). INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 263 The new ideas on the philosophical front also opened up the possibility for a more scientific orientation than had been possible previously. With the overcoming of the disdain for appearances which had been a legacy of Plato, a new respect for nature and the material world was possible. A new/renewed focus on observation and physical detail, in conjunction with the rediscovery of ancient texts, fostered a growth of the empirical sciences. And developments in mathematics, anatomy, optics, geometry, mechanics, and light and colour theory had a profound influence on arts, contributing to the (re)invention of perspective, the understanding of proportion, the ability to portray the human body, and the building of machines for architecture. But equally important, the visual arts were beginning to be understood as a way of understanding the world. This was still very far, however, from a contemporary empiricist perspective on the world. Idealization and the attempt to find the reality underlying appearances were still very much in evidence. Artistic Technical innovations. The preceding factors, in various combinations and proportions, provided the context for dramatic changes in how the arts were practised. The most important of these was doubtless the growing concern for and achievements in naturalism. Overcoming the disregard and even disdain for physical appearances of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance saw the emergence of a new goal for painting -- mimesis or imitation. It was also, in a sense, the rediscovery of an old goal involving a return to the naturalistic depictions of antiquity. Thus the goal of accurately portraying nature and that of imitating classical Greek and Roman art were seen as closely connected. Such striking achievements in naturalism were made possible by numerous scientific and technical advances. One of these was the invention of oil paint (invented by a Flemish painter and brought to Italy by Antonello da Messina). The use of oil paint allowed for a greater vivacity of colour and greater ease in blending colours, making possible the layering of paint which created many of the expressive effects characteristic of Renaissance painting. One of the most pivotal innovations was the discovery of linear perspective (or, again, more properly the rediscovery since aspects of perspective had been used in Greek and Roman art). Based on mathematics and optics and with precursors in fourteenth century experiments in spatial illusionism, linear perspective was one of the 264 SHARON BAILIN primary innovations which made naturalistic expression possible. In allowing for the accurate representation of the spatial characteristics of objects, it also facilitated the design of buildings and machinery, thus contributing to achievements in architecture. Linear perspective was also significant in terms of how it changed the relationship between observer and art object. Whereas in much Medieval art, the perspective on objects is rather like what one would see when walking around amidst them, linear perspective imposes one unique point of view (as if seen through a window) (Boorstin, 1992). This has the effect of both objectifying vision by putting distance between subject and object (Kristeller, 1990), and subjectifying vision in that the artist is imposing a personal point of view on the space (Taylor, 1989). This seems to indicate a new degree of self-consciousness on the part of the artist, and perhaps some lessening of the total immersion in the cosmic order characteristic of previous times (Taylor, 1989). Turner, however, cautions against drawing metaphysical implications too readily. He points out that linear perspective was developed for many reasons, theological and compositional, as well as to accommodate continuous narrative, and that being “a tool to counterfeit the way the ‘real’ world was seen” (1997, p. 109) may have been the least important of these. Moreover, linear perspective was only one tool in the artist’s collection of expressive devices and not always the most important (see also Welch, 1997). Another area of science which had significant implications for the visual arts was anatomy. Vastly increased understanding of the anatomical makeup of living organisms contributed greatly to the ability to accurately portray the human form in painting and in sculpture, and it was sometimes artists themselves who conducted such investigations. Leonardo’s extensive studies in human anatomy are a case in point. What turned this series of innovations into an artistic revolution was likely dissemination. Artists often travelled amongst various citystates and courts (and sometimes foreign countries), picking up new ideas and techniques and spreading them to other artists. The proliferation of prints and engravings also served to make the works of artists more widely available and to disseminate new techniques. Training. In the early Renaissance, those individuals wanting to be artists would have had some basic education in literacy in the vernacular and mathematical skills related to commerce but would generally not have been schooled in Latin or the humanities. The majority of their artistic training took place in a workshop setting through apprenticeship to a master. The training was extremely INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 265 rigorous and, for apprentice painters, took the form of drawing and copying, particularly the copying of the drawings of masters, engravings of master works, and examples from model books. (The latter were not limited to training exercises, but also found their way into actual paintings). For would-be sculptors, copying details of classical sculptures and models in clay, plaster, wax, and wood, as well as rendering live models in various poses and in movement formed the basis for their training. The emphasis was on the mastery of technique, not on originality. As the Renaissance progressed, the demands on artists-in-training gradually became more intellectually challenging and the workshop practices more sophisticated. The curriculum enlarged to include more intellectual concerns, for example grammar, geometry, arithmetic, anatomy, perspective, and theoretical design. There was a growing recognition of the necessity for a more humanistic education for artists in the light of the growing possibilities for more creative autonomy and the interchange between painting and other fields of study. Social With the changes in the nature and practice of the visual arts, artists became increasingly dissatisfied with their status as manual labourers and sought to increase the prestige of their work as well as to advance their own social status. Their efforts focused on gaining recognition for the intellectual aspects of their work and having the visual arts included among the liberal arts. These efforts largely took the form of a fairly concerted campaign of self promotion (Ames-Lewis, 2000). One aspect was the increasing participation of artists in intellectual activities. Artists played a prominent role in archeological investigation and discovery, and the incorporation of classical forms and motifs into their own work was seen as “the visual equivalent of the humanists’ response to the textual heritage of ancient civilization” (Ames-Lewis, 2000, p. 109). Artists began to compose poetry, which was seen as a liberal art, to respond to classical and contemporary texts, and to write treatises which explained the intellectual demands and achievements of their art. As the knowledge required to paint or sculpt increased (to include, for example, perspective, anatomy, and knowledge of classics for inventing themes for paintings), their claim to intellectual status was strengthened (Ames-Lewis, 2000). Changes in the training of artists to include the liberal arts also reflected these changes in the status of the artist. An important avenue for promotion of the visual arts was 266 SHARON BAILIN through participation in the paragone debate which focused on the relative merits of painting, sculpture, and poetry. This debate gave artists a prominent forum for explaining the intellectual achievements of the visual arts, demonstrating their expressive power, and arguing for a role for creative imagination in the visual arts equal to that in poetry – an accepted part of the liberal arts (Ames-Lewis, 2000). Artists also took more direct measures to increase their social status. They took on court and civic duties, acquired (sometimes bought) titles, purchased fine houses, started wearing elegant dress, and formed their own art collections – in other words took on the life style of a courtier. They also used self-portraiture as a means to assert in visual form their artistic and intellectual skills (Ames-Lewis, 2000, p. 209). Over the period of the Renaissance, the self-portraits of artists changed from portrayals as craftsman with artist’s smock and paint brush to grand portraits of confident gentlemen with fine clothes and visible signs of wealth and status. They often contained classical allusions and frequently gave focus to the artist’s hand, thereby calling attention to the artist’s skills of representation and invention. The master of this type of self-promotional self-portrait was probably Durer, whose depiction of himself as Christ prompts this comment by Ames-Lewis (2000): “In Durer’s conception the self-portrait has matured from being a vehicle for acknowledging artistic and intellectual skills into the artist’s recognition of his divinely-inspired creativity (p. 242).” Artists also began to engage in the Renaissance equivalent of advertising. They began to produce some work which were not for commissions, but whose primary purpose, rather, was to display their skills, techniques and erudition. These were disseminated largely in the form of engravings (Ames-Lewis, 2000). One of the leading figures in the art of self-promotion was the artist and art critic Giorgio Vasari, whose Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1568/1965) has been an important source of information about the artists of the Renaissance. Vasari had his own theory of art-historical development which saw incremental progress throughout the Renaissance culminating in achievements which rivalled or surpassed those of ancient Greece and Rome. In the Lives he was interested in pointed out artistic and/or moral lessons according to his theory. Leonardo held a pivotal place in Vasari’s theory as he saw him as a pioneer of the modern age in the development of naturalism. Michelangelo he saw as achieving the height of perfection. Thus his extravagant praise for these two artists as divine geniuses served his rhetorical goals in corroborating his theory (Turner, 1992). Although his INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 267 accounts were largely based on fact, historical accuracy was not his main concern, and he invented stories to suit his purposes (particularly with respect to Leonardo as there was not a great deal know about him). Indeed, Turner talks of Vasari as inventing Leonardo. Without question both Leonardo and Michelangelo were extraordinarily talented artists and produced work of stunning effect. But there were many, many highly gifted artists during that period who were not praised in such lavish terms. It was the writings of Vasari which were principally responsible for the construction of Leonardo and Michelangelo as creative geniuses, an ascription which was taken up in subsequent writing. Thus our contemporary impressions of artistic genius during the Renaissance are largely the direct or indirect result of the writings of Vasari. The changes in the nature and practice of the arts were also accompanied by a transformation in the relationship between artist and patron. The members of the nobility who patronized the arts took pride in their high levels of humanistic education and culture, and early in the Renaissance, it was they, along with their humanist advisors, who decided on the themes and details of paintings. The choice of themes or ‘invenzione’ was considered very important as artworks were steeped in classical allusions and were generally allegorical, suggesting certain moral lessons. As their status as intellectuals grew, artists began to seek the right to decide on their own “‘invenzione,” and, after some struggles, patrons were beginning to grant artists some leeway for creative invention. The growing practice of signing works marked the beginnings of the notion of authorship. And certain artists were gaining substantial reputations and were sought after in competition among patrons. Patrons began to seek works by a particular artist rather than on a particular theme and there was some recognition of individual style. There were even some references made to the personal idiosyncrasies of artists, foreshadowing to some extent the contemporary emphasis on creative personality (Ames-Lewis, 2000). Invenzione, Fantasia, and Ingegno These changes in how artists were viewed were reflected in the kinds of terms used to describe them and their work. In the 14th century, the focus was mainly on imitation not imagination. Over the course of the Renaissance, the terms fantasia (imagination), invenzione (invention), and ingegno (genius) were used with increasing frequency, both by 268 SHARON BAILIN artists themselves and by humanist commentators. These ascriptions were part and parcel of the growing recognition of artists’ inventive powers and their right to creative input into their work. Nonetheless Kemp cautions against imposing essentially modern notions of artistic creativity on that period. Rather, we must analyse these terms in view of what they meant at the time and in relation to each other (Kemp, 1977). One of the differences which Kemp points out is that the term of invenzione was used in two different senses during the Renaissance. One sense is associated with the discovery of truth and is more like our concept of discovery than invention. Invenzione in this sense is a rational process which involves finding principles which are in harmony with nature, for example Brunelleschi’s invenzione of perspective. Renaissance thinkers believed that there was a unity between the imitation of antiquity, the laws of nature, and the artist’s originality in invention, a point of view which is unthinkable in post Romantic ideas of creativity. Along this line, Leonardo held that there was no conflict between an artist’s inventiveness and the imitation of nature since the latter is not superficial copying but is, rather, “an active ability to remake natural effects in the work of art through a deep understanding of natural causes” (Kemp, 1977, p. 381). The second sense of invenzione, emanating from the literary-poetic tradition, refers to the power of inventing new things and is associated with inspiration. Invenzione in this sense was attributed to poets but was denied to visual artists for much of the 15th century. When it was finally applied to visual artists, its scope was quite limited, referring not to form, which was seen as an aspect of design or composition, but only to content, that is coming up with the subjects for painting, The term ingegno or genius was applied occasionally by artists to a few extraordinary individuals, but it tended to refer simply to innate brilliance rather than to the complex of meanings associated with the term today. Moreover, ingegno must be subject to constraint and discipline. Alberti, for example, claimed that genius was not enough for artistic achievement and that one also required knowledge, diligence and persistence. He believed, moreover, that an artist must not invent monstrosities and he was suspicious of inspirational fervour (Kemp, 1977). And although the attribution of genius was made from time to time by artists, humanists still tended to resist attributing ingegnium to painters. A notable exception was Carlo Marsupinni’s epitaph for Brunelleshi in which he refers to the architect as divino ingenio, a divine genius (King, 2000). INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 269 References to imagination (fantasia), which is connected to the capacity to form images, were still rare before 1450 and painters were generally not credited with “advanced powers of imaginative individuality” (Kemp, 1977, p. 365). Imagination was sometimes seen as an extension of rational thought. A notable exception, however, was Franceso Colonna’s characterization of imagination as a transcendental power of the mind separate from rational thought. This was, according to Kemp, an idea which was “altogether new in Renaissance writing on the arts” (Kemp, 1977, p. 365). Kemp further states: Of all the instances cited, only Filarete uses fantasia as an indispensable part of his vocabulary of art, and only he seems to be moving towards a notion of artistic ingenium working platonically with inspired insight like the poet. (Kemp, 1977, p. 375) One of the most important artists to stress the quasi-divine nature of human imagination and creative power was Leonardo. He held that man’s creating is like God’s in a sense, but that it operates in its own manner and at a different level of the microcosm: It is in this that he shows himself to be a divine thing; for when nature finishes its production with its species, there man begins with natural things to make with the aid of this nature infinite species of things. (Leonardo, cited in Kemp, 1977, p. 382) Whatever the differences in the uses of the terms, however, it does seem clear that at least some artists and thinkers “began to establish that imaginative procedures, whether credited to fantasia, imaginative, or cogitativa assumed a vital role in artistic invention” (Kemp, 1977, p. 396). Nonetheless, these Renaissance ideas were still a fair distance from contemporary notions of originality, creative freedom, and authentic self-expression. As Kemp summarizes: It is salutary to realize that the verb ‘to create’ was barely exploited at all in an artistic context before Leonardo, whatever modern translations might suggest to the contrary. The verb invariably used to denote the production of a work of art was fare, which could be applied as readily to pasta as painting. (Kemp, 1977, p. 397) Imagination and Art The preceding examination serves to demonstrate the dramatic changes that took place during the Renaissance with respect to the practice of the arts. These were accompanied by changes in how the relationship between imagination and art was conceptualized, in particular with respect to the role of individuality, originality, freedom, and self- 270 SHARON BAILIN expression. Artists enjoyed increased autonomy in the practice of their art and increased freedom for creative input. Individual artists began to be recognized and their work valued and sought after. Artists and their work began to be thought about in terms of invention, imagination and genius. And astonishing advances in naturalism opened up unprecedented expressive possibilities and allowed for the creation of works which we still today deem highly imaginative. The question still remains, however, as to how close these changes brought us to our modern assumptions about the nature of imagination in art. It appears that, although there was some movement in that direction, movement which was built upon in later periods, the way of looking at imagination and its role in art was still some distance from our modern conception. This is not surprising given a world-view that, although in transition, was still fundamentally different from our own. Indeed, Welch (1997) argues that the 14th and 15th centuries were periods of remarkable continuity as well as tremendous transition, and Turner (1997) cautions us not to overestimate the modernity of the Renaissance. Kemp (1977) summarizes thus: The dominant tone of fifteenth century writing was that the visual arts were governed by rational procedures of discovery and making, which could be given almost infinite extension by imaginative invention rather than by capricious creativity of an anarchically modern kind. (p. 397) One area in which this difference can be seen is with respect to the idea of originality in artistic work. Certainly originality was not what was primarily at issue in Renaissance art. So much of the change, so many of the innovations were not new in the sense of without precedent or antecedent, but were, in fact, rediscoveries from antiquity, and this was seen not as a problematic lack of originality but rather as desirable. And the principle method of training and working was through copying and imitation, including copying from model books and from the works of other artists. The continuity that was evident in Renaissance art was not only from classical antecedents, however, but there was also continuity through Medieval art. The popular view is that the Middle Ages marked a radical break with the Roman past and that the classical heritage was completely forgotten. Contemporary scholars have pointed out, however, that there was much more continuity than this perspective would suggest. Welch (1997), for example, in comparing a 14th and a 15th century chapel in Santa Maria Novella, points out that, despite their stylistic differences, they were built to serve the same purposes, were INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 271 commissioned by the same family of patrons who in both cases specified the details of the work, used the same techniques, and told the same Christian stories. The contemporary sense of artistic imagination as conjuring up something new from artist’s inner being is likewise absent from Renaissance art theory. The goal of art was not individual creativity but rather mimesis or imitation. Artists were not trying to generate possibilities or to conjure up something new. Rather, their goal was to capture reality, both in terms of representing appearances and in terms of mirroring the hierarchical moral order of the world (Barzun, 2000). Contemporary art theorists such as Gombrich (1960) have pointed out that one can never really capture reality in any straightforward way – that art always involves interpretation and imaginative transformation, and this is certainly also the case with respect to Renaissance naturalism. Nonetheless the goal of art was quite different than today. The aim was not to invent; it was not to produce something new from within the artist. And, although there was a growing recognition of individuality of style, it was still generally distrusted. Alberti, for example, “acknowledges that nature provides each ingenium with its own particular gifts, but regards this as a limitation to be overcome by the universal artist rather than as a welcome expression of individuality” (Kemp, 1977, p. 390). Similarly, from Leonardo: “the idiosyncrasies of individual judgment must be overridden by absolute standards derived from a rigorous investigation of natural law” (Kemp, 1977, pp. 390-391). Despite some variation and diversity, Renaissance art was built upon several fundamental ideas: (a) that mimesis of nature was of paramount importance, (b) that art required rational knowledge, and (c) that antiquity provided the best possible guide for achieving these ends. Invention and imagination were never to override these basic principles of art (Kemp, 1977, p. 396). Although the Renaissance did see an increase in the autonomy of artists over their work, it was never complete freedom in the sense which is seen as desirable in the contemporary art context. Indeed, Turner warns against having an “overly optimistic” view of individual autonomy during the Renaissance (Turner, 1997, p. 10). The idea of free will which was being developed philosophically was, as we have seen, a limited one, and the artistic and social constraints on the artist were still considerable. The extent of artistic license was still severely constrained, and most works were still done for commissions. Welch is, 272 SHARON BAILIN in fact, critical of the idea that the artist-patron relationship was characterized by increased freedom: The artist-patron relationship should not be thought of as one of greater or lesser freedom but as a continuum which shifted and alternated from patron to patron and from commission to commission. Few artists could afford to work only according to their own ideas and few patrons had, or wanted, total control over the finished product; the majority of relationships were somewhere in between these extremes. (1997, p. 114) Despite the fact that contemporary notions of artworks as unconstrained products of the artist’s imagination or authentic expressions of the artist’s inner being are not applicable to Renaissance art, nevertheless we deem a very large number of the works produced during this period to be highly imaginative, some even exemplars of imaginative portrayal. This is due, to a large extent, to the advances in naturalism which allowed for unprecedented expressiveness in the works. Thus the imaginativeness of the works was connected with a series of contextual, intellectual, artistic and social factors which were external to the artist. The idea that art changed as a result of the extraordinary imagination of a few creative geniuses is highly problematic. Rather, the very idea of creative genius seems to have been largely a construction by writers such as Vasari and others who followed his lead to promote certain views about the arts. This is not at all to deny that some of the artists of the Renaissance were extraordinarily talented, dedicated and far-sighted individuals who achieved work of unsurpassing beauty and expressive power. But a better way to think about what these individuals possessed might be in terms of a combination of abilities and traits, fueled by a rich and extensive repertoire of knowledge and developed through rigorous training, which interacted with contextual, intellectual, artistic and social factors, to innovate and produce imaginative work. What this analysis does seem to indicate, however, is that our modern assumptions about imagination centred on individuality, originality, freedom, and self-expression are not necessary in thinking about the production of imaginative works. This might suggest that contemporary efforts to foster imagination which focus exclusively on these aspects are misplaced. Producing imaginative work, whatever else it may involve, seems to be connected to a deep understanding of the relevant artistic and cultural traditions and to a real mastery of the repertoire. These must play a central role in education for artistic imagination. INVENZIONE e FANTASIA: THE (RE) BIRTH OF IMAGINATION 273 Author’s Address: Faculty of Education Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. CANADA V5A 1S6 EMAIL: Sharon_Bailin@sfu.ca ACKNOWLEDGMENT This paper was written with the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am also grateful for the opportunity for research and writing afforded by my residency at the Rockefeller Foundation Study Center in Bellagio, Italy in 2002. REFERENCES Ames-Lewis, F. (2000). The intellectual life of the early Renaissance artist. New Haven: Yale University Press. Barzun, J. (2000). From dawn to decadence: 1500 to the present. NY: Harper Collins. Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The creators. NY: Random House. Csikszentmihályi, M. (1988). The domain of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 190-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gombrich, E. (1960). Art and illusion: As study in the psychology of pictorial representation. New York: National Gallery of Art. Kemp, M. (1977). From “mimesis” to “fantasia:” The quattrocento vocabulary of creation, inspiration and genius in the visual arts. Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 8, 347-398. King, R. (2000). Brunelleschi’s dome: How a renaissance genius reinvented architecture. NY: Penguin. Kristeller, P.O. (1990). Renaissance thought and the arts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Turner, A.R. (1992). Inventing Leonardo. Berkeley: University of California Press. Turner, A.R. (1997). Renaissance Florence: The invention of a new art. NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Vasari, G. (1965). Lives of the artists. (G. Bull, Trans.). London: Penguin. (Original work published 1568) Welch, E. (1997). Art in renaissance Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.