Out of Lascaux

Baroque Vs Rococo, Part 2

Sculpture and Architecture

Having established that the Rococo in painting was more of a French phenomenon than an Italian one, we can now move on to where it is more recognizable as a style. I say "sculpture and architecture," but it's more in the decorative ornamentation of architecture that Rococo manifests itself, rather than in building design or free-standing sculpture.

The artist who reigned supreme in both of these media was Gianlorenzo Bernini. His free-standing scultpures are amazing works from the hand of a brillliant craftsman. The flesh of his figures pulses with life, looking for all the world like it would be soft to the touch. But his "Baroqueness" comes with the theatricality of his works. They vibrate with action, emotion, and movement, some to the point of melodrama. His most Baroque is his Ecstasy of St. Teresa of Avila.

Here is the image that the mystic St. Teresa described in her Interior Castles in which she encountered an angel with a flaming arrow who pierced her with it to her very soul. The very erotic expression on the saint's face is no exaggeration or artistic license: the passage is highly erotic, and Bernini has captured it perfectly.

Early in his career, Bernini was asked to work on various parts of the St. Peter's in Rome. One piece, the Baldachino, is a hint of the over-ornate Rococo that is yet to come. Later on, in 1657, Bernini created the Throne of St. Peter.

Here is Andrea Pozzo's ceilings made 3-dimensional. Gilded putti float above the chair and surround the window which represents the light of God as seen in the form of the holy spirit - a dove is outlined on the window. The chair is a highly decorative piece with carved back and legs. But it is really a casing for the relic, which is an old wooden chair said to be the actual chair used by St. Peter himself. The whole thing is a writhing mass of angels, clouds and draperies, stunning in its grandeur but difficult to understand on a rational level. This is what Rococo was to become.

Where Bernini had some rationale behind his work - the image of the holy spirit shining above the holy relic - later artists did not. All of the grandeur and extravagant design was lifted whole from the Baroque and deposited into the Rococo, leaving the ideas, the iconography, and the rationale behind.

We can see it most clearly in Germany, where Dominikus Zimmerman decorated the pilgrimage church "Die Weis" in Upper Bavaria, mid 1700's.

Gilded garlands, wreaths and scrolls squirm across the walls and over windows, surrounding the altar in a spectacular display of artistic over-exuberance. As a professor of mine once said, the stuff just crawls down the walls like growing, golden vines. Another example of this type of Rococo enthusiasm is the more famous Versailles Palace. Another, more spectacular, but lesser known example is The Amber Room, which started this whole Baroque Vs. Rococo post in the first place.

I'm looking at these two posts and realizing how much I have left out. But I didn't want to write a dissertation: I merely wanted to clear up the differences, which I'm sure a lot of people didn't even know existed. I hope this explains it at least a little.

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.