The Discovery of Pictorial Composition. Theories of Visual Order in Painting 1400-1800.

Thomas Puttfarken, The Discovery of Pictorial Composition. Theories of Visual Order in Painting 1400-1800

New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000. viii + 332 pp., inc. 120 b/w and 40 color illus. $45. ISBN: 0-300-08156-1.

A book that has the privilege of discussing the compositions of the finest paintings of the Western tradition must be regarded with anticipation but also with trepidation. David's Death of Ma rat and Gericault's Raft of the Medusa would be more than enough for a very solid book. The second mentioned painting, however, falls well outside the titular chronological limits of the book (1400 to 1800). So does the long discussion of Giotto's Arena Chapel frescoes, not to mention the still earlier mosaics of the Florentine Baptistery, Kandinsky's Impression no. V, and Pollock's Full Fathom Five. To be sure, the constraints of the title are not much of a problem for the author, although the reader might find himself out on a raft in rough seas. It becomes quickly clear that the range of dates chosen do not have any meaning at all, and alas, neither does the book, as a unified treatise. And to make matters worse, the language is stilted, repetitive and unattractive (but not as unattractive as the black and white repro duction of the Michelangelo's restored Last Judgment, to take a single example).

It seems to me essential and even obvious that when beautiful imagery is being treated, works like the San Zaccaria Altarpiece by Giambellino, Titian's Assumptions of the Virgin, a slew of Poussins (too many? 10 of the 40 color illustrations are devoted to his work), Rembrandt's Night Watch and others of similar caliber, the language must be appropriate.

If the reader is getting the impression that this reviewer is hard hearted toward the book, let us look at the section devoted to Masaccio, as a test case, partly because he is among my fuvorite Renaissance artists, one who stands at the beginning of the new art, by most accounts and not far from 1400, the avowed starring date for the book's coverage. The author brings up, as is usual, the issue of a possible role on the part of Brunelleschi, but in this case he seems to think that Brunelleschi's experiments and application of perspective were limited to the two portable pictures we know about (but do not have), and that Pippo did not have the brains nor the will power to extend perspective conceptions to wall painting. In treating the Brancacci Chapel the author sees the Masolino and the Masaccio main scenes as somehow equivalent. In a highly debatable point, he says that Masaccio's frescoes here are framed by pilasters and "entablatures" all'antica, and contain extensive perspectival worlds ... nobody has y et claimed them to be akin to, or even the prototype of, the modern easel painting" (99). And there is good reason, I suggest.

Puttfarken's book presumably falls under the rubric of "theory," and if that is the proper distinction, it reflects the weaknesses of an exclusive approach. The author seems very heavily dependent upon a small group of modern and ancient critics, and would have done better to have relied upon his own visual insights which are often considerable.