____________________________________________________________________________________
Mannerist Architecture and Michelangelo
BY YEONG MIN KIM December 11, 2007
The term Mannerism, which refers to the art of the period between the High Renaissance of the early sixteenth-century and the beginnings of Baroque art, is a relatively modern concept. Introduced roughly around the early twentieth century, the name Mannerism had already been used to distinguish certain schools of sixteenth-century paintings in a derogatory manner.1 It is a term that requires careful definition, for only “certain works of a certain kind produced by certain artists between about 1520-1590, and only in certain parts of Italy”2 can be classified as mannerist works of art. Although the application of the concept of Mannerism to the realm of architecture is also relatively new and somewhat controversial, Mannerist architecture can be quite easily defined as the taking of sophisticated liberties with classical architectural vocabulary. In short, the name implies the violation of the rules governing traditional practice of the classical orders, and unpredictable and often irrational dispositions of space. These features are often accompanied by elaborate employments of illusion and rich decorations.3 If balance and harmony are the chief characteristics of the High Renaissance, Mannerism is its very opposite; for it is discordant, capricious, playful, but most importantly, refreshingly creative and daring. Michelangelo Buonarotti, an important architect of this inventive period, and his calculated breaking of the rules, in which classical architectural elements are mixed with sophisticated and innovative liberties, would be largely responsible for what is now commonly defined as the Mannerist style.
1
Nikolaus Pevsner, An Outline of European Architecture (London: Penguin Books, 1943), 208-209. Linda Murray, The Late Renaissance and Mannerism (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967), 30. 3 Murray, “The Late Renaissance and Mannerism,” 31. 2
Michelangelo Buonarotti was born in 1475 and died in 1564.4 In course of his long lifetime, he established himself as one of the greatest artists in the realm of painting, sculpture, and in architecture. Although he always claimed to be a sculptor and nothing else, he himself had painted the illusionist architecture in the Sistine Chapel, designed the architectural framework projected for the sculpture in Julius II’s tomb, and accomplished many other significant architectural commissions during his long career.5 In the year 1516, Michelangelo was first commissioned by the Medici family to add a façade to the church of S. Lorenzo, which was designed by Brunelleschi.6 Although the wooden model of the design of the façade that is attributed to Michelangelo does not represent his final design, it intrinsically represents his architectural intentions.7 From the model of the two story high structure with ample accommodation for sculpture, it was quite evident that rather than having the façade express the shape of Brunelleschi’s building in architectural terms, Michelangelo wanted the façade to become an extension of sculpture.8 This conception of a building as an extension of sculpture is fundamental to Michelangelo’s architecture and is fully embodied in the Medici Chapel of S. Lorenzo, which will be discussed shortly in greater detail. In 1520, despite Michelangelo’s dedicated efforts that were put into the design of the façade of S. Lorenzo, the Medici was impelled to cancel the contract due to the many complications in the transport of the marble and for other unknown reasons.9 Immediately, Michelangelo was offered another commission for the Medici Chapel, or the New Sacristy of S. Lorenzo. Since Brunelleschi’s Old Sacristy was the family mausoleum of the older generations of the Medici family, the New Sacristy on the opposite wing of the transept had been planned to also function as a mausoleum that would commemorate various members of the Medici.10 Housing the tombs of Lorenzo de’ Medici and Giuliano de’ Medici, the chapel itself is filled with a plethora of complicated architectural schemes that seem to further confirm Michelangelo’s importance as a
4
Wolfgang Lotz, Architecture in Italy 1500-1600 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1995), 89. Lotz, 89. 6 Pevsner, 221. 7 Peter Murray, The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance (New York: Schocken Books Inc.,1986), 172. 5
8
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 172. Pevsner, 221. 10 Lotz, 90. 9
creator of Mannerism.11 Although identical to the Brunelleschi’s Old Sacristy in plan, the elevation of the two chapels is much different; Michelangelo’s New Sacristy is significantly higher than Brunelleschi’s Old Sacristy, which is partly due to the fact that the dome of the New Sacristy is hemispherical instead of a shallow umbrella vault like the dome of Brunelleschi.12 The architectural arrangement of the Tomb of Giuliano Medici (fig. 1), with three vertical divisions of which the side bays have blanch niches with large segmental pediments above them, is heavily concentrated on the figure in the central bay. This central figure, however, receives a negative emphasis because of its framework of paired pilasters that has no triangular pediment to distinguish it. The central niche, in which the sculpture is placed, is deeper than the other two empty niches on both sides. This negative emphasis alone is characteristically Mannerist.13 Michelanagelo’s breaking of the rules of classical architecture and deviation from the tradition of the 1400’s can be better observed in his treatment of the New Sacristy doors. As opposed to Michelangelo’s treatment of the Sacristy doors, Brunelleschi’s doors of the Old Sacristy are framed in columns and pediments that are arranged in a manner of order, measure, and rule (fig. 2). The columns stand on the same level as the observer, and their height is calculated so that the observer is able to feel the relationship between it and his own. The round arched terracotta reliefs that are placed over the doors are typical wall ornaments and thus differ from the framing device of the doorway in material, color, outline, and depth.14 Michelangelo’s doorway, however, is constructed in a much different manner (fig. 3). A large and simple tabernacle structure, which is framed by large pilasters, surrounds an empty niche, and sits upon the comparatively small-scaled marble structure of the door. The segmental pediment that rests upon the pilasters seems slightly too large for the space it occupies and appears to be uncomfortably crushed by the larger pilasters on either side. In fact, the tabernacle and its frame are so heavy that the lintels on top of the door on which they rest have to be supported by brackets, thus forfeiting their true function and becoming the bases of the
11
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 172. Lotz, 90. 13 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 173-174. 14 Lotz, 90. 12
tabernacles.15 This, in effect, gives an image of the low doors becoming a subsidiary member that is dominated and weighed down by the much taller and substantial tabernacle above it. Even more complicated is the space inside the tabernacle itself. The pilasters that support the segmental pediment do not seem to correspond to any of the classical orders and have interesting sunk panels on their faces. Also, the segmental pediment becomes double at the top of the arch, where a second arc-like form is superimposed on the original pediment. Furthermore, the bottom of the pediment is cut off and the niche appears to flow upwards into the space of the pediment. More puzzling is the placement of a meaningless block of marble at the bottom of the tabernacle and on top of the lintels of the door. In short, “the elements of the classical vocabulary have been somewhat brutally treated and recombined to give a series of forms which at that time were unique.”16 Thus, upon encountering the distinctive doorways, observers immediately find themselves puzzled and dwarfed by the architecture and the weighty tabernacles under which they enter the New Sacristy. Vasari describes Michelangelo’s work at S. Lorenzo in these words: He proposed to imitate the old sacristy of Brunellesco, but with other ornaments. He introduced a varied and more novel composition than ancient and modern masters have been able to employ, for his fine corners, capitals, bases, doors, tabernacles, and tombs, vary considerably from the common rule and from the lines laid down by Vitruvius and the ancients. This license has encouraged others to imitate him, and new fancies have sprung up, more like grotesques than regular ornament. Artists therefore owe Michelangelo a great debt for having broken the chains which made them all work in one way.17
Begun in the year of 1521, the chapel of S. Lorenzo was completed in 1534, though less ambitiously than originally planned.18 It was designed some years before Giulio Romano’s Palazzo del Te; another renowned
15
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 173-174. Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176. 17 Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects Vol. 4. (New York: Everyman’s Library, 1963), 133134 18 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176. 16
exemplar of Mannerist architecture that, with its odd distortion of classical forms, would provide its viewers with a consciously bizarre entertainment.Thus, Michelangelo’s work can surely be defined as one of the first as well as the finest examples of Mannerist architecture.19 Vasari also mentions in The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects his admiration of Michelangelo’s subsequent masterpiece, the Laurentian Library: He showed it even better in the library of S. Lorenzo, in the handsome disposition of the windows and ceiling and the marvelous vestibule. Nothing so graceful and vigorous in every part was ever seen, comprising the bases, tabernacles, corners, convenient staircase with its curious divisions, so different from the common treatment as to excite general wonder.20 . It is important to note that the Laurentian Library and the unsusual vestibule leading to the reading room was Michelangelo’s first architectural work without any support from sculpture.21 The commission of designing the library was given to Michelangelo by the second Medici Pope, Clement VII in December of 1523 or January of 1524.22 Installed in the west cloister wing of the S. Lorenzo, the Laurentian Library contains the books and manuscripts from the Medici family’s private library, which were moved from the family palazzo to the cloister and was opened to the public.23 In Michelangelo’s initial project, the reading room and the vestibule, or the ricetto, were equal in height.24 The floor level of the Library reading room as we see it now, however, is significantly higher than that of the vestibule due to a condition that was laid down by the pope that demanded the reading room to be constructed on top of the existing monastic buildings (fig. 4).25 Also, Michelangelo had originally wanted to light the vestibule from the top, but had to comply with the pope’s wishes to have the windows placed on the sidewalls.26 Thus, the
19 20 21
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176 Vasari, 133-134.
Pevsner, 221. Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176 23 Lotz, 91. 24 Lotz 92. 25 Lotz, 92. 26 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176. 22
necessity to carry the walls of the vestibule upwards in order to insert windows resulted in the remarkable structure that is much higher than it is wide or long.27 With its extraordinary height of forty-four feet, the vestibule offers a sharp contrast with the twenty-eight feet high reading room.28 Almost perfectly square in plan, its extreme height and narrowness emits a general feeling of discomfort, and emphasizes the contrast to the long, comparatively low and more relaxed reading room, which is one hundred and fifty-two feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty-eight feet high.29 In a sense, the balanced proportion of a Renaissance structure was exchanged for a curious structure that was “as tall and narrow as the shaft of a pit, and a library [reading room], reached by a staircase, as long and narrow as a corridor.”30 Michelangelo’s peculiar treatment of architectural elements is particularly apparent in the walls of the vestibule (fig. 5). It is interesting to see how the inside walls of the vestibule are treated like a façade of a building, as if “they were turned inwards on themselves” and enclosing the magnificent flight of steps that come out from the Library level and onto the floor of the vestibule.31 The austere white against dark grey color scheme of the room is evident in the columns, window niches, architraves, and other structural and decorative elements. As for the columns that are a prominent feature of the vestibule walls, its basic function of acting as supporters of the architraves (the main beams resting across the top of columns) is rendered useless.32 The coupled columns, which divide the walls into panels, are interestingly sunk into the walls instead of standing away from it, as normal columns should.33 By recessing the columns and projecting the panels, Michelangelo ultimately encased the columns; therefore creating an effect of illogical arbitrariness, as the carrying strength of the columns seem to be wasted.34 Thus, Michelangelo’s design altered the classical role of columns, which seem to be independent from the architecture and almost like statues in niches.
27
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. Lotz, 92. 29 Lotz, 92. 30 Pevsner, 223. 31 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. 32 Pevsner, 220. 33 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. 34 Pevsner, 221-222. 28
Furthermore, the slender pairs of brackets that appear to support the feet of the columns do not seem substantial enough to support the weighty structures, and in actuality, do not support them at all.35 Also, placed strategically in between the paired columns are blank windows and above the almost deceiving structures are framed blank niches.36 The resulting effect is indeed very strange, but it is that very quality of unexpectedness that successfully embodies the spirit of Mannerism, which is so often associated with Michelangelo.37 As Nikolaus Pevsner states in An Outline of European Architecture, “What Michelangelo’s Laurentiana reveals is indeed Mannerism in its most sublime architectural form […]. In Michelangelo’s architecture every force seems paralyzed. The load does not weigh, the support does not carry, natural reactions play no part- a highly artificial system upheld by the severest discipline.”38 Even the contemporaries of Michelangelo realized the composition and details of the library as a revolutionary breach with tradition. The spatial organization, although it may seem oppressive and overpowering, (especially with the columns that appear as if they were wedged into the wall) would awaken definite emotions in the mind of the observer. When standing at the lowest story of the vestibule, one would immediately be dwarfed by the inconceivably high ceilings and the massive paired columns that stand above one’s eye-level or even the level of the staircase. The prominence of the columns of the middle story and their chain of unbroken verticals that would loom above the observer would certainly stimulate a feeling of a “huge weight cramped into space.”39 Further adding to the impressive presence of the vestibule walls is the dramatic force of the stairway that leads to the reading room of the Laurentian Library (fig. 6). The first designs for the stairs was made in the year 1524, which showed a much more simple design of two flights of stairs forming a bridge in front the reading room entrance.40 Michelangelo then decided to create a stairway that would be situated in the middle of the vestibule, where it would start out as three fights of stairs and join together at the top of the stairs.41 In 1534,
35
Pevsner, 222. Pevsner, 221. 37 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. 38 Pevsner, 223. 39 Lotz, 94. 40 Lotz, 93. 41 Lotz, 93. 36
however, Michelangelo left Florence and settled in Rome, leaving the Laurentian Library incomplete.42 The staircase was eventually finished in 1557 by Vasari and Amannati jointly, but cannot be wholly identified with Michelangelo’s early designs.43 Although Amannati strove to translate Michelangelo’s vision into reality, much of the details were left to his judgment.44 Almost the entire floor-space of the vestibule is occupied by the monumental stairway, which “appears to flow down from the library level spreading outwards over the floor of the vestibule like lava.”45 Wolfgang Lotz in Architecture in Italy describes the complex design of the grand stairs in great detail: The lower section of the nine steps is in three parallel flights. The treads of the central flight are convex, while those of the side flights, separated off by balustrades, are straight. The three lowest steps of the central flight are wider and higher than those above them; they lie like concentric oval slabs on the floor of the [vestibule], the lowest step surging outwards. At the ninth step the three flights unite in a landing for the top section of the staircase. The convex tenth step lies on the landing in the same way as the lowest step does on the floor of the [vestibule].46
Bartolomeo Amannati’s impressive staircase is rightly a unique piece of sculpture in itself. Never had such significance been placed in a seemingly mundane architectural structure. The staircase was to be viewed as a work of art. To anyone familiar with Michelangelo’s sculpture it should be no surprise to find the evocation of compression and frustration in his architecture, where the observer is compelled to mount the intriguing, beckoning steps but is discomforted by the steps that seem to be pouring continuously downward and outward. Thusly, Michelangelo Buonarotti’s innovative and inspiring architectural mind can be clearly acknowledged and appreciated in his work at the Medici chapel and the Library of S. Lorenzo. In Michelangelo’s achievements within the Basilica di San Lorenzo, the changing and maturing of an idea can be seen before one’s
42
Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 176. Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. 44 Lotz, 93. 45 Murray “The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance,” 178. 46 Lotz, 93. 43
eyes as the glance moves from one part of the architectural structure to another. With his creative and ingenious approach to architecture and the willingness to explore beyond the realms of familiar conventions, Michelangelo’s contributions to the development from the acceptance of an old tradition to the formulation of a new one would continue to inspire and encourage others for many years to come.
Bibliography Ackerman, James S. The Architecture of Michelangelo. Chicago: The University of Chicago P, 1961. Lotz, Wolfgang. Architecture in Italy 1500-1600. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. Murray, Linda. Michelangelo- His Life, Work and Times. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984. Murray, Linda. The Late Renaissance and Mannerism. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1967. Murray, Peter. The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Schocken Books Inc., 1986. Pevsner, Nikolaus. An Outline of European Architecture. London: Penguin Books, 1943. Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Vol. 4. New York: Everyman10Library, 1963.