III. THE RENAISSANCE
The classical idea of art and the traditional classifi-
cations of the arts were retained in the
Renaissance.
The philosopher Ramus, as well as the lexicographer
Goclenius, repeated Galen's definition of art verbatim.
Benedetto Varchi, a
major authority on classification
of the arts, in his Della Maggioranza delle arti (1549),
divided the arts, as
did the Sophists, into those which
are produced by necessity, for utility,
and for enter-
tainment (per necessità, per utilità e per
dilettazione);
like Galen, into liberali e
volgari; like Quintilian, into
theoretical and practical
(fattive e attive); like Seneca,
into entertaining, jocose, and instructing youth (ludicre,
giocose e puerili); like Plato, into
those which make
use of nature and those which do not; like Cicero,
into
major (architettoniche) and minor (subalternate) arts.
However, the status of architecture, sculpture,
painting, music, and poetry
changed greatly: these arts
were now so much more appreciated than other
arts,
that to single them out conceptually became a matter
of course.
In order to achieve this, it was necessary
to realize not only what
separates the arts from handi-
crafts and
from sciences, but also what binds them
together. This became a major
achievement of the
Renaissance: it was not a proper classification, but
a
preparatory operation, the integration of fine
arts. It
had to be carried out on several conceptual levels.
1. First, general ideas of particular arts had to be
formed. Neither a general idea nor a general term of
sculpture existed at the beginning of the
Renaissance.
The term “sculpture” had a narrower
meaning, it
meant only sculpture in wood. To denote those, whom
we
call “sculptors,” Poliziano had to use five terms;
statuarii, caelatores, sculptores, fictores, and
encausti,
meaning those who used, respectively,
stone, metal,
wood, clay, and wax. After 1500 the term
“sculptor”
already embraced all five of them. A
similar integration
occurred in painting and architecture.
2. A general idea of plastic art was
also lacking. In
antiquity and the Middle Ages architecture was con-
sidered rather a mechanical and
utilitarian art and
seemed to be unrelated to sculpture and painting.
In
the sixteenth century it was first noticed that all three
of them
are similarly based on drawing (disegno): G.
Vasari
as well as V. Danti started to consider them as
one group and called them
the arti del disegno (“arts
of
drawing”).
3. A further integration was necessary to classify
“arts of drawing” together with music and poetry. A
general idea which would embrace all of them did not
exist. The integration
began in the fifteenth century,
but it took time before the result was
satisfactory. The
affinity of those arts seemed certain, but the principle
that would include all of them and exclude
the crafts
was lacking; since the Quattrocento diverse principles
were
suggested to fill this gap.
Ingenious Arts.
The Florentine humanist of the
fifteenth century, C. G. Manetti,
suggested calling them
ingenious arts because they are produced by the
spirit
(ingenium) and for the spirit. This
suggestion did not,
however, add very much to the traditional
opposition
of liberal and mechanical arts.
Musical Arts.
Marsilio Ficino, the leader of the
Florentine Academy, wrote:
“It is music that inspires
the works of all creators; orators,
poets, painters,
sculptors, architects.” He continued to call
those arts
liberal arts, though in accordance with his idea the
proper
name would have been “musical arts.” His idea
was
never published but only expressed in letters and
therefore it never won a
more general recognition.
Noble Arts.
G. P. Capriano in his De vera poetica
(1555) singled out the same group of arts, but applied
a different
principle; their nobility. They are “noble
arts,” he
said, as they are the object of our noblest
senses and because their
products are durable.
Commemorative Arts.
L. Castelvetro in his Poetica
d'Aristotele
vulgarizzata (1570) contrasted crafts with
arts on a
different basis. While crafts produce useful
and necessary objects, the
function of painting, sculp-
ture, and poetry
is to keep things in human memory.
Metaphorical Arts.
On the other hand E. Tesauro,
in Cannochiale
Aristotelico (1655) tried to convince his
readers that
metaphorical speech, parlare figurato,
constitutes the essence of these arts and distinguishes
them from crafts.
This was a point of view peculiar
to the manneristic trend in aesthetics of
the seven-
teenth century.
Figurative Arts.
Some theoreticians of the seven-
teenth century supposed that the peculiarity of this
group of arts
consists rather in their figurative, pictorial
character, since even poetry
is ut pictura. Especially
C. F. Menestrier in
his Philosophie des images (1682),
stressed
that all these arts—poetry not less than paint-
ing and sculpture—travaillent en images (“work in
images”).
Fine Arts.
The idea that such arts as poetry, painting,
and music are
distinguished by beauty was very seldom
uttered before the eighteenth
century (e.g., in the
sixteenth century by Francesco de Hollanda, who
called them boas artes). As the traditional idea
of
beauty was very broad, successful works of industry
and handicraft
were also called beautiful. However,
the narrower meaning of the work
permitted one to
separate poetry, music, dance, painting, sculpture,
and
architecture as a peculiar group of beaux
arts, “fine
arts.” This is often believed
to be an achievement of
the eighteenth century. But as early as 1675 the
out-
standing French architect F.
Blondel, in his Cours
d'architecture said
that what these arts, called by earlier
writers
“noble,” “commemorative,”
“metaphorical,”
etc., have in common is harmony.
Although harmony meant certainly the same as
beauty, Blondel failed to call
those arts beautiful. On
the other hand, C. Batteux in his Beaux arts réduits
à un seul
principe (1747), used this term and included
it in the title of
his book. This was conclusive; the
principle of beauty and the name
“fine arts” were now
generally adopted (though
Batteux himself saw the
common link of those arts not so much in their
concern
with beauty, as in the fact that their purpose is pleasure
and their method is imitation). However, a proper
name came to
be as important as a proper concept
for the progress of aesthetic theory.
Elegant and Agreeable Arts.
A few years earlier
different names were proposed for beautiful arts.
In
1744 G. B. Vico suggested “agreeable arts” and in
the
same year J. Harris recommended “elegant arts.”
However, Batteux's terminology has prevailed. The
“system of fine
arts” was established, embracing poetry,
music, theater, dance,
painting, sculpture, and archi-
tecture.
Since the fifteenth century it had seemed cer-
tain that these arts formed a peculiar group of arts.
However, it
took centuries before what unites this
group and what separates it from
crafts and science
was made clear (see P. O. Kristeller [1951-52]). Para-
doxically Batteux contributed to the
acceptance of the
“System of the arts” although his
own system was
different: he divided arts (in the broad, old sense)
into
mechanical arts, fine arts, and intermediate arts (archi-
tecture and oratory).
