生活

出生在热那亚一个小艺术家,斯特凡诺马尼亚斯科领导,他在给Valerio城堡最后,菲利波阿比亚蒂(1640 - 1715)米兰。除了1703 - 09年(或1709 - 11)^[2]当工作在弗洛伦斯为大公柯西莫三世在米兰,马尼亚斯科领导的直到1735年,当他回到他的家乡热那亚。马尼亚斯科领导经常与放置数据的风景Tavella的废墟克莱门特实验在米兰。

成熟的风格

1710年之后,马尼亚斯科领导擅长生产小型hypochromatic画布怪异和悲观的景观和遗址,或拥挤的室内充满了小,经常轻轻摇曳的和卡通细长的人物。人民在他的画中常常是近liquefacted乞丐穿着破烂不堪,呈现在闪烁,紧张的笔触。他们处理不寻常的科目如会堂服务,贵格会教徒会议,强盗的聚会、灾难和审讯宗教裁判所。关于这些主题通常不清楚他的情绪。

一个世纪之后,他将被描述为一个浪漫的画家:涂上的触动,巧妙的表达,小数据在哥特式教堂,或独处,隐士和僧侣;或无赖聚集在城镇广场;士兵在军营。指出艺术历史学家和评论家路易Lanzi形容他的Cerquozzi他的学校,从而暗示他的追随者市井。他表明,马尼亚斯科领导人物几乎一个多跨度大…画着幽默和快乐,但如果这种效应被画家的意图。Lanzi表明这些偏心块所青睐大公Giovanni Gastone美第奇佛罗伦萨。马尼亚斯科领导还发现当代赞助杰出的家庭对他的工作和收藏家的米兰,例如Arese Casnedi家庭的米兰。这一系列的顾客强调,马尼亚斯科领导被外人比他的更受人尊敬的热那亚,Lanzi指出,他大胆的联系,虽然加入了一个高尚的概念和正确的图纸,没有在热那亚吸引,因为它是远离色泽的完成和工会(热那亚)跟着主人。在二十世纪,鲁道夫Wittkower嘲笑他是孤独的,紧张的,奇怪,神秘主义者,欣喜若狂,怪诞,与威尼斯画派的凯旋课程从1710年开始。

他的风格的起源

影响他的工作是默默无闻的。有人怀疑他威尼斯的松散的绘画风格的影响当代塞巴斯蒂安。里奇(1659 - 1734),热那亚多梅尼科Piola(1627 - 1703)格雷戈里奥·德·法拉利虽然最突出的三个,里奇,画在一个更巨大的和神话风格,和这些艺术家可能实际上已经被马尼亚斯科领导的影响。马尼亚斯科领导被米兰的可能影响il Morazzone(1573 - 1626)在他的作品的情感质量。他的一些油画(见病。(问))召回萨尔瓦多罗莎浪漫sea-lashed风景,和他对绘画的喜的强盗。马尼亚斯科领导的小型规模的数据相对于景观相当克劳德·洛林更多的描述。而他使用的数据相比,衣衫褴褛的乞丐朱塞佩•玛丽亚Crespi的流派风格,Crespi的数字更大,更明显,和个人,并可能Crespi自己可能影响马尼亚斯科领导。其他人指出的影响巴洛克式的意大利画家,罗马市井,在他的异国情调的透视法,well-disseminated雕刻的法国人Callot.

他的风格的

马尼亚斯科领导的风格是非常原始,而且超越了累,学术巴洛克式的代表热那亚的当代艺术。最终,他的工作可能有影响马可·里奇,朱塞佩巴扎尼,弗朗西斯科·马费伊,著名画家de tocco(触摸)Gianantonio和弗朗西斯科•瓜尔迪在威尼斯。但对于这些洛可可画家,宽松的泡沫景观刷成了工具,反复无常的历史透视法,和装饰嬉戏,而对�马尼亚斯科领导,它似乎已经裹入他的现实令人沮丧的蜘蛛网。

他描绘的酷刑审讯(或者叫监狱审讯)和其他人类lowpoints似乎传授现代社会视觉洞察力,回忆,表达了西班牙语戈雅在19世纪的蚀刻画。然而,正如Wittkower所指出的,它仍然没有解决”多少清静无为批评或闹剧进他的照片”。这是未知的关于犹太人和他的真实情绪贵格会教徒是。是他绘画贬义的教会,还是他们表达一些知识对被认为是意大利主流异国情调的元素是什么?没有明确的书面证据存在。马尼亚斯科领导,作为一个局外人,会被排除在犹太教堂或教友派信徒服务,和non-individualized漫画填充这些油画很难将获得个人的同情。其他地方马尼亚斯科领导画奇迹,包括一个帆布的圣母玛利亚召唤复仇骨架的坟墓来抵挡church-robbers。洞察力可以获得什么犹太人或贵格会从马尼亚斯科领导的绘画,喜欢麦克白的对话在fog-ridden沼泽cauldron-stirring女巫,并不清楚,或者焦点part-prescient和花一部分困惑。

Life

Born in Genoa to a minor artist, Stefano Magnasco, he apprenticed with Valerio Castello, and finally with Filippo Abbiati (1640–1715) in Milan. Except for 1703–09 (or 1709–11) when working in Florence for the Grand Duke Cosimo III, Magnasco labored in Milan until 1735, when he returned to his native Genoa. Magnasco often collaborated with placing figures in the landscapes of Tavella and the ruins of Clemente Spera in Milan.

Mature style

After 1710, Magnasco excelled in producing small, hypochromatic canvases with eerie and gloomy landscapes and ruins, or crowded interiors peopled with small, often lambent and cartoonishly elongated characters. The people in his paintings were often nearly liquefacted beggars dressed in tatters, rendered in flickering, nervous brushstrokes. Often they deal with unusual subjects such as synagogue services, Quaker meetings, robbers' gatherings, catastrophes, and interrogations by the Inquisition. His sentiments regarding these subjects are generally unclear.

A century later he would be described as a romantic painter: who painted with candid touches, and ingenious expressiveness, little figures in Gothic churches; or in solitude, hermits and monks; or scoundrels assembled in town squares; soldiers in barracks.^[3] The noted art historian and critic Luigi Lanzi described him as the Cerquozzi of his school; thereby signaling him into the circle of followers of the Bamboccianti. He indicates that Magnasco had figures scarcely more than a span large ... painted with humor and delight, but not as if this effect had been the intention of the painter. Lanzi indicates these eccentric pieces were favored by the Grand Duke Giovanni Gastone Medici of Florence.^[4] Magnasco also found contemporary patronage for his work among prominent families and collectors of Milan, for example the Arese and Casnedi families of Milan.^[5] This series of patrons underscores the fact that Magnasco was more esteemed by outsiders than by his fellow Genoese; as Lanzi noted, his bold touch, though joined to a noble conception and to correct drawing, did not attract in Genoa, because it is far removed from the finish and union of tints which (Genoese) masters followed.^[6] In the twentieth century, Rudolf Wittkower derided him assolitary, tense, strange, mystic, ecstatic, grotesque, and out of touch with the triumphal course of the Venetian school from 1710 onward.

Origins of his styleThe influences on his work are obscure. Some suspect the influence of the loose painterly style of his Venetian contemporarySebastiano Ricci (1659–1734), the Genoese Domenico Piola (1627–1703) and Gregorio de Ferrari, although the most prominent of the three, Ricci, painted in a more monumental and mythic style, and these artists may in fact have been influenced by Magnasco. Magnasco was likely influenced by Milanese il Morazzone (1573–1626) in the emotional quality of his work. Some of his canvases (see ill. (q.)) recall Salvatore Rosa's romantic sea-lashed landscapes, and his affinity for paintings of brigands. The diminutive scale of Magnasco's figures relative to the landscape is comparable to Claude Lorraine's more airy depictions. While his use of figures of ragged beggars has been compared with Giuseppe Maria Crespi's genre style, Crespi's figures are larger, more distinct, and individual, and it is possible that Crespi himself may have influenced Magnasco. Others point to the influences of late Baroque Italian genre painters, the Roman Bamboccianti, and in his exotic scenography, the well-disseminated engravings of the Frenchman Callot.

Legacy of his style

Magnasco's style is strikingly original and transcends the tired, academic Baroque that epitomized much of contemporary Genoese art. Ultimately, his work may have influenced Marco Ricci, Giuseppe Bazzani, Francesco Maffei, and the famed painters de tocco(by touch) Gianantonio and Francesco Guardi in Venice. But for these Rococo painters, the loose brush became a tool for frothy landscapes, capricious historical scenography, and decorative frolics, while for Magnasco, it seemed to have entrapped his reality in a gloomy cobweb.

His depictions of torture in The Inquisition (or perhaps named Interrogations in a Jail) and of other lowpoints of humanity seem to impart a modern perspicacity to his social vision, recalling that expressed by Spanish Goya in his 19th century etchings. And yet, as Wittkower notes, it remains unsolved "how much quietism or criticism or farce went into the making of his pictures".^[2] It is unknown what his true sentiments about Jews and Quakers were. Were his paintings derogatory of those congregations, or do they express some intellectual fascination with what were considered exotic elements in the Italian mainstream? No clear documentary evidence exists. Magnasco, as an outsider, would have been excluded from a synagogue or Quaker service, and the non-individualized cartoons which populate those canvases can hardly be expected to garner personal sympathy. Elsewhere Magnasco painted miracles, including one canvas in which the Virgin Mary summons avenging skeletons out of their graves to fend off church-robbers. What insight one can garner about Jews or Quakers from Magnasco's paintings, like Macbeth's dialogue in the fog-ridden fen with the cauldron-stirring witches, is not clearly intelligible or in focus, being part-prescient and part ghoulishly confused.