Out of Lascaux

Baroque vs. Rococo, Part 1

After posting a previous entry and discussing something as being "rococo", it occurred to me that many people don't know the difference between Baroque and Rococo. It all gets lumped together by many scholars who are not specialists, either because the two are so similar or because the scholars don't really care enough to make a distinction. So, it is my civic duty to enlighten my readers.

Painting

The Baroque period in art is generally agreed top have begun around 1600, with the dark, dramatic paintings of Caravaggio and the classical frescoes of Annibale Carracci in the Farnese Palace. Where one artist emphasized light and dark, the other emphasized classicism. Immediately, we have two very distinct styles attributed to one era. This dichotomy continued throughout the era we call the Baroque. How else could we say that Rembrandt and Rubens are in the same category stylistically?

However, there is one idea that connects all these disparate styles together: theatricality. Whether the drama is created by the use of intense lights and darks, or by the use melodramatic scenes in stage-like settings, all Baroque art is dramatic.

Certain themes were popular with certain groups of artists. Mythological stories grew in popularity while biblical stories continued as a mainstay of religious art. Caravaggio made "Merry Company" - i.e. party - scenes popular. This included card players and musicians. The painting below is by one of his French followers, Nicholas Tournier.

As the 17th century wained, Baroque art became "more so," that is, it became ever more theatrical. The late 17th century example below is by Luca Girodano. It shows the Archangel Michael defeating Satan and his minions. The drama is there in the dark, writhing bodies being trod upon by a bright, shining archangel. This is the epitomy of Baroque art, in all aspects. Giordano uses both melodrama and light and dark to emphasize the image's theatricality. The classical influence re-introduced by Carracci dominates the look and feel of the figures, while the darkness below him boils with turmoil. It's all there in the 1680's and 90's.

As with any art style, people carried it to extremes as they lost sight of the content. The melodrama and billowing draperies remained, exaggerated to a point of silliness at times. Two prime examples are Andrea Pozzo and Baciccio, whose ceiling frescoes are so full of fluffy clouds, billowing draperes and adorable winged putti (child angels) that it is almost impossible to decipher the story they are attempting to tell. I give links instead of images because they need to be seen large, otherwise they are just a mass of writhing figures and colors.

The 18th century saw the rise of Rococo. Where Baroque art is dramatic in an attempt to pull the viewer into the experience as it is portrayed, Rococo is dramatic just for the sake of being dramatic. The most one can say about Rococo art is that it is pretty. Rococo did not get a true foothold in Italy, where content was still important because most paintings were still being done for churches. Italian art of the 18th century is still more Baroque than Rococo. It is up in the more northern countries, in France and Germany, where it gained a large following. The most well-known French artist was Watteau, who specialized in pictures of garden parties and images from the Comedie Francaise. The image below shows one of his works. Notice the overall decorative aspect of the work. This is a hallmark of Rococo art.

Overall, the Rococo is not seen much in painting. It is safe to say that the French were the supreme creators of Rococo, and that is why the most famous Rococo painter was French. To see true Rococo, one must look at architecture, where the decorative aspects of Rococo took off on wings of inspired glory. That will be my next post.