Baroque and Rococo styles - Essay Example

BAROQUE VERSUS ROCOCO By Introduction Italy, as one of the most popular lands that developed art, saw many art periods and styles develop and fade. These styles were determined by type of society, styles applied by artists, the inspiration used by artists, and the time period to mention but a few. Apart from the major periods such as Florence and Renaissance that provided clear distinctions from each other, there were also sub-periods that were so closely-related that their distinctiveness had to be dug deep. Examples include the Baroque and Rococo art periods. These periods were connected by time in that one paved way to the other, thus the complex relativity between them. However, at a closer glance, they show clear differences in terms of sensibility. The following study will highlight these differences by defining the expressive muscularity portrayed in Borromini’s Baroque work that was to be later replaced by Rococo’s style of overly decorative trivia in the context of architecture. Definitions It is important to identify the differences between Baroque and Rococo art styles. The most outstanding difference between them is that Baroque art as an inspiration to architecture existed before the Rococo period (Varriano 1986, p. 16). Baroque art dates back to, and stretches across the 17th and part of the 18th century. On its part, Rococo art influenced architecture for part of the 18th century before it faded. By definition, Baroque art refers to a bizarre, complex, and extravagant [architectural] ornamentation style or period (Kidder & Oppenheim 2006, p. 129). On the other hand, Rococo is defined as a style of architectural decoration whose sensitivityemphasized basically on freedom of brushwork, delicacy of color, smallness of scale, and happiness (Milam 2011, p. 55). Overall, Rococo art was portrayed of as paying attention to decorativeness while demonstrating playfulness and lightness. On the contrary, Baroque art depicted a more provocative and heavy-handed sensibility. Evaluation In evaluating Borromini’s Baroque works as highlighted in Anthony Blunt’s literature titled “Borromini” and RemySaisselin’s “The Rococo as a Dream of Happiness”, it is possible to highlight the differences that create a distinction between the two styles’ sensibilities as they influenced architecture in ancient Italy. One key sensibility evident in Borromini’s works of architecture is that rather than rely purely on his own inventions or new designs, he derived inspiration from previous art masters. As Blunt (1979, p. 27) writes, “Borromini was a conscious innovator, but that, like many other innovators, he relied much on the authority of previous masters.” In this statement, it is evident that he applied the principles of baroque that allowed artists to draw inspiration from previous periods. Michelangelo, as it stands out, was one of the influencers of Borromini’s work (27). On the other hand, and according to Saisselin (1960, p. 147), Rococo art did not draw inspiration from any previous periods, but relied strictly on the artists’ feelings. This contrasted sharply with Baroque art in that rather than be inspired by previous works; Rococo art was defined as not an expression of age, but an expression of art (147). In this, it is possible that the concept of Borromini’s copying Michelangelo’s works is what is termed as “age”. As such, this shows a difference in sensibility. The second difference between Baroque and Rococo styles is that Borromini’s style of architectural work showed complexity while in Rococo, nothing was perceived of as “too serious.” Borromini, in coming up with his designs applied what was termed as complex curves that comprised of concave and convex curves applied mostly in cathedral works. Rococo art, on its part, derived its name at the onset of the 18th century. To show that it was a light matter as compared to Baroque, Saisselin (1960, p. 145) reveals that at first, the term Rococo was perceived of as jargon. Again, when it was finally used to refer to decorative art, it began as slang. Additionally, when it became a solid word for decorative ornamentation in architecture, Saisselin states that to this day, it is “not quite admitted or at least taken too seriously as a term” (145). In this, the serious-lightness difference in sensibility is supported in that while Rococo was not as sensitive a matter to architecture, Baroque was its direct opposite. Still on matters sensibility, Borromini’s architectural works portrayed the extreme complexity that required calculations, much thought, and sensitivity thus the muscularity part of Baroque art. As Blunt (1979, p.28) states, Borromini, in his design of the façade del Duca’s Santa Maria in Trivio, portrayed a high level of skill and accuracy in that the measurements of the façade were recorded and applied exactly as they appeared on the plan. Again, so high was the design that a draughtsman could not reach with a ladder (28). This particular revelation painted a rather “playful” side of Rococo art in that the only complexity that was ever faced in the style was oriented towards paintings. As Saisselin (1960, p.149) indicated, “the technical problems of the painters will now be so to dispose the woman in a drawing or on a canvas…” In this, it is clear that the comparison between the two styles seems unfair to a point in that while Borromini was struggling with complex designing, Rococo artists stressed over using brush and paint. In this, significant difference in sensibility is evident between Rococo and Borromini’s Baroque art. The overall objective of the two styles also presents a gap in their sensibilities. Borromini related his work to laws and theories. For instance, he related architecture to nature and applied the resulting relationship in his works. Again, he applied a lot of mathematics in his architecture. After all, the accuracy highlighted earlier could only be measured mathematically. He would also usePythagorean relationships, geometric shapes, and other approaches that Saisselin says were “humanly impossible to understand” (1979, p.47). Pervasively, Rococo art was not in any way based on complexity or any muscular efforts. Rather, as Saisselin indicates, it was aimed at “pleasure and happiness in life” (1960, p.146). Again, it is revealed that this happiness was obtained largely through decorative nature that was evident in inclusion of painted panels, decorated chimney pieces and etching (147). As such, the assertion that expressive muscularity presented by Baroque art, such as Borromini’s, had been replaced by the triviality of [Rococo] decoration is evident. Collectively, the decorativeelements in Rococo art present yet another difference in that Rococo art is shown to have been more of concerned with the interiors of buildings. Concisely, it qualified more as an interior decoration form. Therefore, the lightness of touch, happiness of life, and exciting passions (Saisselin 1960, p.147) all came with the interior decoration context of Rococo art. On the other hand, the fact that Borromini designed buildings from the ground to completion or revamped existing ones and giving them new life made Baroque art suffice as a more complex style. In a nutshell, Baroque art, through Borromini’s architectural works, gained the feel of muscularity while Rococo art that succeeded Baroque art took a more tender approach of decorative nature. As such, it is sufficient to state that Baroque work that was replaced by the overly decorative, and that their comparison shows a wide difference in their sensibility. Conclusion As the study argues, different styles or periods of art, no matter how closely-related they were, had distinct features of their own. These differences are what made each style or period unique. In this study, Borromini as a Baroque artist is compared to the Rococo style in which multiple differences are evident. For instance, Baroque art was evidently more serious and complex than Rococo art which was oriented to happiness and decoration. Again, while Borromini planned and oversaw the construction of buildings such as cathedrals, Rococo art never did the same but intervened later by decorating the interiors of already-completed structures. As such, these factors collectively support the assertion that the expressive muscularity of the Baroque has indeed given way to the triviality of decoration evidenced by Rococo art. Bibliography Blunt, A 1979, “Sources and Theories” in Borromini, London: Lane Publishing. Kidder, D, & Oppenheim, N 2006, The Intellectual Devotional: Revive your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam Confidently with the Cultured Class, Rodale. Milam, J 2011, Historical Dictionary of Rococo Art, Scarecrow Press. Saisselin, R 1960, “The Rococo as a Dream of Happiness,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism19.2 : 145-152. Varriano, J 1986, Italian Baroque and Rococo Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More