Canaletto was one of the most influential Venetian artists of the eighteenth century. He sought to entertain his clients and to improve his compositions by creating spaces that were inspired by places that actually existed but were better than reality. Over the course of his career, he became more and more experimental with architectural structures, skewing and combining perspectives, and bringing diverse buildings and scenes together into one composition in an original way. He is most recognized for what making choices about what to include and not include within his countless drawings and paintings and for the imagination and inspiration that his compositions required. He served as a powerful advocate on behalf of Venice as he catered to Grand Tourists, who took his paintings back to their homes, and thus promoted interest and curiosity about his city. When he lived in England he took his art and style north with him, and also learned from and was influenced by British contemporaries. Though his style became somewhat formulaic in England as he painted works that appealed to the tastes of his patrons, he regained his dramatic and original style again after his return to Venice.  When he died of a fever on April 19, 1768, he left behind an outstanding legacy of beautiful masterworks and ingenuously inventive compositions.  Many other artists tried to equal his achievement and drew their inspiration from Venice and Italy, but no one reached the perfection of Canaletto’s views and capricci and no one has ever surpassed him as the great artist of the Venetian veduta.

Canaletto traveled back to Venice for short visits in 1751 and 1753, and finally returned there from England for good in 1755. By the time he returned, his nephew Bellotto was making a name for himself, and Francesco Guardi (1712-1793) was also gaining popularity as a view painter. When exactly he painted Piazza San Marco: Looking South-West (Fig. 18) is not known, but it probably was after 1755 and was likely an attempt to impress the Venetian Academy of Fine Art.[1] What is different about this painting in comparison to his other fantastic pictures, is that he is using a “fish-eye” effect in order to compress a very broad panorama into a single view. The scene stretches from the Palazzo Ducale and San Marco at the left to the Procuratie Vecchie at the right.[2] It is most likely that Canaletto used a lens to accurately show the distortion of space and the buildings in it.[3] The cluster of vertical, diagonal, and horizontal lines creates a stable composition, and the colors he uses are still bright, as the figures and architecture are flooded with sunlight.

In the late 1750s, Canaletto painted Piazza San Marco: Looking East from the North-West Corner (Fig. 19), which compares most closely to his painting of the Westminster Bridge (Fig. 13) from his trip to London.[4] He employs the same technique of framing the foreground with an overhanging arch, so that the main subject of the scene in the distance can be seen through its rounded form. Because Canaletto has purposely darkened the foreground, the viewer’s attention is drawn to the sunlit space beyond. He has chosen to feature San Marco without the flagstaffs that would normally be seen, in order to place full emphasis on the architecture and design of the façade.[5] He continues his geometric style in this painting, by contrasting the domes and rounded spaces with the straight, vertical structures. Also noticeable is his use of dots and tiny curved lines to highlight small details on the figures in the piece. This is known as his late “calligraphic” style, which he adopted after his return to Venice to add a touch of sparkle and life to them.[6]

A different angle of the piazza is shown in his Piazza San Marco: Looking East from the South-West Corner (Fig. 20). The preliminary drawing of circa 1760 (Fig. 21) shows an extended view that Canaletto chose not to include in the final painting, but most likely used as a prototype for other paintings of the piazza. Featured are the Campanile and San Marco underneath the colonnade of the Procuratie Nuove.[7] Although the architecture is prominent, what draws the viewer’s attention directly is the cluster of people in the foreground. It is unknown who these men are, but they are actively engaging in a conversation. The man standing to the right mimics the upright figures elsewhere in the picture. He also holds a cup of coffee, suggesting that he was just at the Café Florian in the Piazza, but not shown in the painting. By including such a figure who is clearly enjoying the locale and the services found there, Canaletto may have been promoting the lively social scene in Venice.[8] He stands and faces to the left, drawing the viewer’s attention in the same direction, toward the sunlit open space and San Marco. Throughout his career, Canaletto had regularly worked outside, drawing from the motif, just as he had probably shown himself in two of the paintings discussed above (figs. 11 and 16). Even at this late point in his career, he was still working outside. In fact, the Reverend Edward Hinchliffe wrote that his grandfather and John Crewe, when in Venice in 1760:

…chanced to see a little man making a sketch of the Campanile in St. Mark’s Place: Hinchliffe took the liberty – not an offensive one abroad, as I myself can testify – to look at what he was doing. Straightway he discovered a masterhand and hazarded the artist’s name ‘Canaletti’. The man looked up and replied ‘mi conosce’.[9]

This suggests Canaletto’s increased popularity and recognition for his skill, especially for British visitors.

In 1763, Canaletto was accepted as a member of the Venetian Academy. It was the custom for an artist to present the Academy with a painting after he was admitted, and Canaletto chose to paint what would be his last capriccio scene.[10] It is called Capriccio: a Colonnade opening on to the Courtyard of a Palace, dated 1765 (fig. 22). The scene is entirely invented and the architecture creates a wonderfully effective contrast between diagonal, vertical, and horizontal lines. Especially beautiful is the intricate detailing along the shafts of the columns. The picture is a charming representation of a fantastic space, comprised of whimsical architecture and delicate detailing. The light highlights the left half of the picture, while the right remains shaded underneath the building. Although the architecture dominates the painting, Canaletto still includes a slice of his trademark bright blue sky and some green foliage. For this very important painting Canaletto wanted to show the Academy all his skill and inventiveness as a painter. Even though landscape and city scenes were not highly regarded as subjects by the Academy—history subjects and portraits were considered more prestigious for painters—Canaletto showed that his capriccio views were not just simple renderings of the world around him, but imaginative scenes that were more beautiful in composition and details than actual life. Canaletto showed with this painting that he was worthy of being a member of the Academy.

His last dated work is a drawing, completed 1766, titled San Marco: the Crossing and North Transept, with Musicians Singing (fig. 23). At the bottom of the paper, he wrote with pride, “I Zuane Antonio da Canal, made the present drawing of the musicians who sing in the ducal church of San Marco at the age of 68, without spectacles in the year 1766.”[11] It is clear that he has lost none of his abilities as an artist, despite the advanced age he acknowledges in his quote. In a painting done of the exact same view thirty-six years earlier, San Marco (An Evening Service) (fig. 24), he filled the composition with people, unlike in the drawing, where he has carefully shown just a few people, including a beggar with a dog and other figures.[12] The chorus sings enthusiastically while people below listen to them and pray, and the sun illuminates the interior of the basilica, touching upon the chorus, the hanging cross, and the crowd of people. In the later drawing, Canaletto takes more advantage of the open space, and does not choose to create such an upward composition. Instead, he focuses more on the figures as individuals and the details of the architectural decorations. Although the drawing is not completed in the same fashion as the painting, Canaletto still plays with the proportions of the composition, which is clearest in the differences in the height and width of the space in the two images. These two comparisons represent Canaletto’s lifelong battle in deciding how to portray his scenes. They are clear examples of his early versus his later styles and show how his style developed over the course of his career. What is “true” may not be visible in either work, but Canaletto still used his own inventiveness in completing both of them.[13]

Because of the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748), which became especially threatening in north Italy in 1745 and 1746, Canaletto traveled to his patrons in London in the spring of 1746 and he stayed in England for almost ten years.[1] When he first arrived, he painted scenes of the Westminster Bridge. For the Duke of Northumberland, he painted London: Seen through an Arch of Westminster Bridge (fig. 13), a work that was likely of particular importance to the Duke who was overseeing the project of constructing the new bridge at the time.[2] This striking composition is highlighted by the dynamic relationship between curvilinear and horizontal lines. The structure of the semi-circular arch frames the view of London, which is highlighted by the overwhelmingly large yellowish-blue sky. Instead of using his traditional bright blue, sunny hues to depict the sky, he has chosen colors that represent dusk or dawn. The bridge is positioned at an angle, so that it creates depth and does not act as a barrier between the viewer and the Thames.[3] It is placed slightly off-center, so that more of the bridge to the left is included. A bucket hanging at the right helps to balance this out and add more linear interest. Through the bridge, the viewer can see the top of the church of Saint Clement Danes in the center, Saint Paul’s Cathedral toward the right, and the Water Tower and York Water Gate at the left.[4] Although the subject is London, Canaletto has given the picture a number of Venetian qualities. First of all, he has positioned himself on the river, just as he frequently positioned himself on the canals of Venice, so that the water plays a fundamental role in the composition. As is the case in many of his Venetian scenes, the sky occupies more than two-thirds of the canvas. In addition, the buildings are painted with the same kind of precision and attention to architectural detail, while the figures add life to the scene. The one unusual feature is the huge arch of the bridge, through which the viewer sees all of London, a new kind of viewpoint that would have impressed Canaletto’s British contemporaries.

In 1747, Canaletto painted London: Whitehall and the Privy Garden from Richmond House (Fig. 14) for Charles Lennox, the 2nd Duke of Richmond.[5] The Duke is shown here with one of his servants in the lower right-hand corner, claiming both patronage of the work and ownership of the scene, which depicts part of his land in London. This picture has become one of the most highly acclaimed paintings that Canaletto completed while in England.[6] The composition itself is highly geometric. It is clear that his artistic style in London was beginning to evolve with rational undertones and crisp lines. The perspective that he chose creates a convenient line on which the buildings rest in an orderly fashion. Everything is directed toward the center plane, as if he were trying to create order out of the mass of buildings and people making their way through the space.[7] Each person and building is exquisitely finished, with even the most minute detail included. This, along with the bright blue sky covering the upper half of the work, remain characteristic of Canaletto.

In 1754, Thomas Hollis, a philosopher and author who was one of Canaletto’s best friends in England, commissioned Canaletto to paint Old Walton Bridge (Fig. 15).[8] He paints the bridge off to the right of the picture in bright white against the gray cloud hovering overhead. The river fills most of the foreground, together with a boat that is having its mast lowered so that it can pass under the bridge. A seated man in the foreground resembles the artist in Rome: the Arch of Constantine (Fig. 11), perhaps Canaletto himself. Thomas Hollis is depicted with his friend Thomas Brand, his Italian servant Francesco Giovannini, and Hollis’ pet dog Malta on the riverbank, with Hollis wearing the bright yellow coat that makes him stand out.[9] They, along with several other figures, enliven the foreground, and many more are seen across the river. Samuel Dicker, a member of Parliament, paid for the bridge in 1747 and his house can be seen across the bridge in the painting.[10] The composition overall continues Canaletto’s desire for geometric harmony. The unusual structure of the bridge, with its many intersecting pieces of wood, is balanced by the details on the left, including geese in the river, the boat passing through, and a cluster of trees. The sky is vividly represented and comprises about half of the picture, a constant characteristic of the artist’s work.

While he was in England, Canaletto began to invent landscapes and combine elements from different sources with greater confidence. What was real and what was imagined in his work became much more obvious. With representations like Capriccio: River Landscape with a Ruin and Reminiscences of England  (Fig. 16) and its companion Capriccio: River Landscape with a Column, a Ruined Roman Arch, and Reminiscences of England of about 1754 (Fig. 17), for example, he truly assimilated two worlds into one.[11] In both paintings, Canaletto creates a scene that combines the modern British countryside with buildings, ruins, and monuments that come from ancient and modern Italy.[12] Known as the Lovelace Canalettos because they were sold by the Earl of Lovelace in 1937, these were most likely commissioned by the 5^th Lord King of Surrey.[13] It is said that when the second painting was completed, Canaletto placed an advertisement in the newspaper announcing that he was holding an exhibition in his London home, partly for publicity and partly to prove he was the real Canaletto. (In Venice at the time, his nephew Bernardo Bellotto was calling himself “Canaletto” and was producing views that were similar to his uncle’s in style.[14]) Because of the way Canaletto had combined so completely two different worlds in one composition, the painting attracted much attention, and for good reason. In the foreground, there is a tall Corinthian column with a saint on the top. In the middle ground toward the left, there is a triumphal arch that could have been inspired by any number of architectural monuments in Rome. Also in the middle ground toward the right and behind the column is an aqueduct-like bridge that resembles Westminster Bridge.[15] In some ways it appears that the background is split by the two worlds. On the left-hand side, the vegetation, greenery, and hilly landscape resemble a scene that can be found in England. Off to the right, even farther back in the composition, the cityscape appears to be Italian-inspired, with a prominent dome protruding upward. Trees on either side delicately frame the painting, and the sky, moving from a peachy tone to bright blue in the upper right-hand corner, has the tonalities that are often found in Canaletto’s own creations. Some unusual features of these two paintings and of other works produced by Canaletto in England are the rather smooth handling of the landscape and the generalization figures that look like blotches of color. This is a new style in Canaletto’s work, very different from the highly detailed and individualized figures that appear in the paintings he had made before that time.[16] With this shift in style Canaletto may have been catering to the specific tastes of his clients or may have been thinking about how these works were going to be displayed.  If they were only going to be seen from a distance, they did not have to be as carefully painted as they would have to have been if they were going to be seen close up.  In any case, this bold style is a characteristic of some of the paintings Canaletto made while he was in England.

In 1747, Canaletto painted London: Whitehall and the Privy Garden from Richmond House (Fig. 15) for Charles Lennox, the 2nd Duke of Richmond.[5] The Duke is shown here with one of his servants in the lower right-hand corner, claiming both patronage of the work and ownership of the scene, which depicts part of his land in London. This picture has become one of the most highly acclaimed paintings that Canaletto completed while in England.[6] The composition itself is highly geometric. It is clear that his artistic style in London was beginning to evolve with rational undertones and crisp lines. The perspective that he chose creates a convenient line on which the buildings rest in an orderly fashion. Everything is directed toward the center plane, as if he were trying to create order out of the mass of buildings and people making their way through the space.[7] Each person and building is exquisitely finished, with even the most minute detail included. This, along with the bright blue sky covering the upper half of the work, remain characteristic of Canaletto.

In 1754, Thomas Hollis, a philosopher and author who was one of Canaletto’s best friends in England, commissioned Canaletto to paint Old Walton Bridge (Fig. 16).[8] He paints the bridge off to the right of the picture in bright white against the gray cloud hovering overhead. The river fills most of the foreground, together with a boat that is having its mast lowered so that it can pass under the bridge. A seated man in the foreground resembles the artist in Rome: the Arch of Constantine (Fig. 11), perhaps Canaletto himself. Thomas Hollis is depicted with his friend Thomas Brand, his Italian servant Francesco Giovannini, and Hollis’ pet dog Malta on the riverbank, with Hollis wearing the bright yellow coat that makes him stand out.[9] They, along with several other figures, enliven the foreground, and many more are seen across the river. Samuel Dicker, a member of Parliament, paid for the bridge in 1747 and his house can be seen across the bridge in the painting.[10] The composition overall continues Canaletto’s desire for geometric harmony. The unusual structure of the bridge, with its many intersecting pieces of wood, is balanced by the details on the left, including geese in the river, the boat passing through, and a cluster of trees. The sky is vividly represented and comprises about half of the picture, a constant characteristic of the artist’s work.

While he was in England, Canaletto began to invent landscapes and combine elements from different sources with greater confidence. What was real and what was imagined in his work became much more obvious. With representations like Capriccio: River Landscape with a Ruin and Reminiscences of England  (Fig. 17) and its companion Capriccio: River Landscape with a Column, a Ruined Roman Arch, and Reminiscences of England of about 1754 (Fig. 18), for example, he truly assimilated two worlds into one.[11] In both paintings, Canaletto creates a scene that combines the modern British countryside with buildings, ruins, and monuments that come from ancient and modern Italy.[12] Known as the Lovelace Canalettos because they were sold by the Earl of Lovelace in 1937, these were most likely commissioned by the 5^th Lord King of Surrey.[13] It is said that when the second painting was completed, Canaletto placed an advertisement in the newspaper announcing that he was holding an exhibition in his London home, partly for publicity and partly to prove he was the real Canaletto. (In Venice at the time, his nephew Bernardo Bellotto was calling himself “Canaletto” and was producing views that were similar to his uncle’s in style.[14]) Because of the way Canaletto had combined so completely two different worlds in one composition, the painting attracted much attention, and for good reason. In the foreground, there is a tall Corinthian column with a saint on the top. In the middle ground toward the left, there is a triumphal arch that could have been inspired by any number of architectural monuments in Rome. Also in the middle ground toward the right and behind the column is an aqueduct-like bridge that resembles Westminster Bridge.[15] In some ways it appears that the background is split by the two worlds. On the left-hand side, the vegetation, greenery, and hilly landscape resemble a scene that can be found in England. Off to the right, even farther back in the composition, the cityscape appears to be Italian-inspired, with a prominent dome protruding upward. Trees on either side delicately frame the painting, and the sky, moving from a peachy tone to bright blue in the upper right-hand corner, has the tonalities that are often found in Canaletto’s own creations. Some unusual features of these two paintings and of other works produced by Canaletto in England are the rather smooth handling of the landscape and the generalization figures that look like blotches of color. This is a new style in Canaletto’s work, very different from the highly detailed and individualized figures that appear in the paintings he had made before that time.[16] With this shift in style Canaletto may have been catering to the specific tastes of his clients or may have been thinking about how these works were going to be displayed.  If they were only going to be seen from a distance, they did not have to be as carefully painted as they would have to have been if they were going to be seen close up.  In any case, this bold style is a characteristic of some of the paintings Canaletto made while he was in England.

One of Canaletto’s most important patrons was Joseph Smith, a British citizen who spent almost his entire life in Venice and was a passionate collector of paintings and drawings. Canaletto was one of his favorite artists and he eventually owned a large number of his works, all of which he eventually sold to King George III. In the early 1740s, Smith commissioned Canaletto to create a series of five paintings of Roman monuments. It is uncertain whether Canaletto journeyed to Rome for these works, or if he used sketches he had made in 1719-1720 when he was there with his father. Smith also had an extensive collection of prints of Roman views by earlier artists, so Canaletto may have used those as inspiration, as well.[1] In his painting called Rome: the Arch of Constantine of 1742 (fig. 11), he depicts the north face famous monument, but places the viewer to the south of the arch. The church of San Pietro and the Colosseum are both visible through the arch. A cluster of figures makes up the foreground, which perhaps could represent students on their Grand Tour. In the foreground to the left is a figure that could represent Canaletto himself. This figure, an artist, is shown with a ruler and book, and could either be drawing or writing. The fact that Canaletto chose to sign and date this work on the piece of stone next to the artist and shaped the letters like the ancient inscription on the Roman arch suggests that he was asserting himself as an master whose works would last through time in the same way as the monuments of ancient Rome had survived.

Another painting made for Smith, Rome: Ruins of the Forum, Looking towards the Capitol of 1742 (fig. 12), represents the site of the forum, the political center of ancient Rome. More Grand Tourists occupy the space and they all appear to be admiring the newly excavated and imposing structures of the remains of the temple of Castor and Pollox.[2] The columns direct the viewer’s attention upward above all the other buildings. The Temple of Saturn and the Palazzo Senatorio are also featured in this work, adding to the upward thrust of the composition. Although all of the historical sites are accurately represented, Canaletto made some additions of his own. Some of the houses off to the left are entirely made up, as comparison with contemporary views of the forum show, and the chimneys that adorn their roofs seem to be Venetian instead of Roman.[3] It is as if Canaletto were turning the tops of the houses into horizontal lines that would balance out the strong verticalities of the other elements in this painting. This piece is unique because Canaletto combines the two worlds of Rome and Venice into one, calculated composition. This may be one of the first examples of a capriccio by Canaletto, meaning that he began not only to play with proportion and space, but he also blended architecture of different cities into one work. He signed and dated this work in the same way that he did in Rome: the Arch of Constantine (fig. 11).

One example of Canaletto’s more creative type of view painting is Grand Canal: the Rialto Bridge from the North, 1725 (fig. 1), which reveals that he combined two separate views of the Grand Canal into one painting.[1] Canaletto himself commented on this picture and identified its location in November of 1725, saying:

The Rialto Bridge seen from the side of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi which is opposite the Palace of the Camerlenghi Magistrates and other Magistrates, with other buildings nearby which look on to the vegetable market where all kinds of vegetables and fruits are delivered to be distributed to the suppliers in the city. In the middle of the Canal is painted a Peotta Nobile with figures in it and four Gondoliers going at full speed and close to it a gondola having the livery of the Emperor’s Ambassador.[2]

If one stands on one of the landing stages where he must have placed himself to paint this work, only the end wall of the Fabbriche Vecchie, seen here at the right of the painting (with the arches on the first story), would be visible to the right of the white Palazzo dei Camerlenghi, which is shown in the painting between the Rialto Bridge and the Fabbriche. One block away, there is another landing stage where one can see the Fabbriche Vecchie, but only the end wall of the Palazzo dei Camerlenghi.[3] However, Canaletto painted the scene so that both the Palazzo dei Camerlenghi and the Fabbriche Vecchie were fully visible from the same viewpoint, which is not possible. This means that the two buildings on the right-hand side of the Grand Canal had to have been studied separately before they were combined into this scene. By looking at two modern photographs taken of the bridge from the different landing platforms (figs. 2 and 3), and comparing them to Canaletto’s preliminary sketch of the painting (fig. 4), one can clearly see how he constructed this imaginary view.[4]

Another good example of Canaletto creating a new perspective can be seen in his painting called Grand Canal: Looking North from near the Rialto Bridge, 1730 (fig. 5).[5] For this, Canaletto first made a preliminary drawing (fig. 6) in which the scene he depicts is seen at eye-level. However, when he paints it, he lifts the viewpoint so that it is seen from a higher level. This change makes it seem like the viewer must be seeing the canal from the piano nobile, or the first floor of a Venetian palazzo, perhaps with a higher-class client in mind, or it could have been made purely for aesthetic adjustments and purposes.[6] In both this and Grand Canal: the Rialto Bridge from the North, Canaletto uses similar tonalities. The facades of the sunlit buildings are painted in light tans, beiges, pinks, and grayish-whites; the gondolas are black; splashes of white are provided by bright white cloths; the canal is mainly greenish-gold and green-blue; and the cloudy skies are many tones of blue. Moreover, both paintings are similarly organized: the sky comprises about two-thirds of each painting, while the cluster of buildings and the Grand Canal make up the bottom third of the compositions.

In a painting called Venice: A Regatta on the Grand Canal (fig. 7), Canaletto depicts a regatta scene during the Festa delle Marie.[7] It appears as though he should have painted this from a boat on the canal, but he actually completed it on land. This may be an indication that Canaletto used the camera obscura, or camera ottica, a special constructed box that would project an image of the landscape onto a flat surface, thus making it easy for the artist to draw it and to increase his accuracy of depiction.[8] According to Antonio Maria Zanetti writing in a document from November of 1725, “by his example Canal taught the correct way of using the camera ottica; and how to understand the errors that occur in the picture when the artist follows too closely the lines of the perspective.”[9] In the painting, he captures a direct image of the regatta, while spectators fill the scene, pointing and gesturing toward the race. Off to the far left is the macchina, under which the winners of the races were celebrated. In a 1740 composition called A Regatta on the Grand Canal (fig. 8), Canaletto paints from almost the same standing point, but he has made several changes. The light in the second painting is much brighter, and the water is filled with more lavish boats. He has also very slightly shifted the composition upward, so that the top of the building located on the left can now be seen. In both paintings, it is clear that it is a Carnival scene because many of the spectators are wearing black capes and white masks, or bauta garb.[10] Canaletto features more of these festively dressed people in the second painting. The colors he chooses to use appear to be more muted in the second composition, but this may have to do with the darker shadows cast by the sun. Both are representations and clear examples of how Venice received its reputation as a vibrant and festive city.

One of Canaletto’s best known works is Venice: The Feast Day of Saint Roch of about 1735 (fig. 9). Here, he depicts the procession of the Doge coming out of the church of San Rocco, where the saint’s relics have been kept since 1485. On 16 August of every year, the saint’s Feast day, a celebration took place to honor St. Roch, the patron saint of plague victims. By honoring the saint, the citizens of Venice thought they could prevent an outbreak of the plague, after one had deeply devastated the population in 1576.[11] This is the first time an artist had depicted this ceremony as the main subject of a painting, but even if Canaletto saw the actual scene, this does not represent it as it happened, because Canaletto could not have seen the procession or the buildings exactly as he depicted them here. The position of the church of the Frari off to the right of the Scuola Grande di San Rocco, which dominates the picture, is wrong, for example, for in reality, the church stands in front of the scuola.[12] In addition, topographical studies have proved that, because of the way the buildings face in reality, the light cannot hit them the way it does in Canaletto’s painting.[13] It is as if the artist has played with the light in order to highlight the scuola, which is decorated with paintings for the festive occasion. The procession fills the bottom of the painting, anchoring the composition with its horizontal weight and movement. The figures can be identified based on the color of their clothes and type of dress. The Doge is shown in gold, and he is surrounded by his cushion-bearers, secretaries in light purple, the Cancelliere Grande in red, the Senators, the Ambassadors, the Guardiano Grande di San Rocco, and the bearer of the sword of state.[14]

The Stonemason’s Yard of about 1725 (fig. 10) is considered to be a masterpiece of Canaletto’s early career.[15] It is also one of his most unusual works, in that he has hardly altered the scene at all. Here, the Campo San Vidal is the space into which the viewer is invited, with the Grand Canal in the middle ground. The church of Santa Maria della Carità sits on the far side of the Grand Canal.[16] The picture is unlike anything previously done by Canaletto. The subject matter strays far away from what he depicted in the urban areas of Venice. Here, he chose to focus on a quiet corner of the city. Michael Levey noted that, “part of the difficulty of dating the picture is due to its uniquely high quality. It is perhaps the product of a moment of fusion between Canaletto’s early and mature styles, both of which seem present in it.”[17] He has, however, elevated the viewpoint again by creating his balcony perspective, as seen in Grand Canal: Looking North from near the Rialto Bridge (fig. 5), which allows us to look down on the scene. Otherwise, he has stayed true to the actual topography of what he observes.[18] Today, there have been several changes made to the scene, including the addition of the Accademia Bridge, alterations on the church façade, the destruction of the campanile, and the building of a pseudo-gothic palace at the left. Unfortunately, no preliminary drawings for this work are known, so scholars are unable to study whether or not he made any changes to the composition. Nor were there any painted by any of Canaletto’s contemporaries.

The most important and innovative Venetian view painter in the eighteenth century was Canaletto (1697-1768). Born Giovanni Antonio Canal, the son of a theatrical scenery painter, Bernard Canal (1664-1744), Canaletto (meaning “little canal”) first trained to paint stage decorations with his father. From 1719 to 1720, they traveled together to Rome, where he was exposed to the works of the famous painter of city views and ruins, Giovanni Paolo Pannini (1691-1765) and was inspired to paint city scenes of his own.[1] After his return to Venice, he began working on views of the city, following to a certain extent the groundbreaking example of Luca Carlevarijs (1663-1730), who was already well established in Venice when Canaletto came to maturity as a painter. Very quickly, however, Canaletto’s reputation as a vedutista or view painter surpassed Carlevarijs.[2] Among Canaletto’s patrons were Stefano Conti, a merchant from Lucca; the Irish entrepreneur Owen McSwiney; Charles Lennox, the 2nd Duke of Richmond; and the British Consul to the Venetian Republic, Joseph Smith, who sold his collection to King George III, and who played an important role in launching Canaletto’s career.[3] Canaletto even traveled to England in 1746 and continued to work there for numerous British patrons for nine years, until he returned to Venice in 1755. No matter what subject he chose, whether he was working in Italy or in England, Canaletto could paint the details of his views with perfect accuracy and detail, but he was also recognized for his creative interpretations of his native city, the capricci, in which he made changes, added or omitted buildings, altered proportions, or created shadows that did not exist. He even adjusted the size and shape of the Grand Canal. He thus sometimes remodeled the actual cityscape in his paintings and created a new reality, but the postcard perfection of all his views made the spectator believe that they all depicted reality. Sometimes the alterations are very obvious and would be clear to anyone who was familiar with the place Canaletto was depicting, but sometimes the changes are very subtle. In all cases, though, Canaletto’s use of light, color, and detail are completely convincing and there is no difference in the execution of his capricci and his realistic views. A study of these various works will reveal his brilliance in both genres and will help to explain why he should be considered the greatest and most inventive of the Venetian vedutisti.

Carolyn Higgins

Dr. Marjorie Och

ARTH 470Z.01

December 11, 2011

The Power of Color: Titian and Colorito

Venetian artists had an intense competition with central Italians and there was a constant back and forth between the two sides. Venetian artists found their breakthrough in the High Renaissance with Titian and his perfection of oil painting. But Titian’s importance goes past inspiring just Veniceand many consider him to be the “first painter in modern times to free the brush from the task of exactly describing tactile surfaces, volumes, and details, and to convert it into a vehicle for the direct perception of light through color and for the unimpeded expression of feeling.”[1] He did this by being the champion of colorito, the application of color. In his long career, Titian’s style changed drastically as he worked more with the medium and the canvas. This essay will examine Titian’s colorito in the development art, the importance of Venice in this development, and the significance of color and brushwork to his paintings in both style and meaning.

Italyat this time was not the unified state but groups of city-states that had plenty of conflict and competition. These people were not Italians but identified with their city as Florentines, Venetians, or Romans. City pride was one that could not be broken. Pride and competition was present in the art world with the competing schools of painting between Florenceand Venice. The Florentine style focused on disegno, the act of preparatory drawing. Artists would work first on separate paper or parchment to perfect their design before turning onto the canvas. Design was vital and drawing was the most important element for perfection. This idea started long before the High Renaissance because “the notion that drawing serves as a foundation for the arts of painting and sculpture had been expressed at least as early as Petrarch.”[2] Disegno was more than just for the perfection in painting, but it was the staple for all areas of art in the Renaissance: painting, sculpture, and architecture. InVenice, however, design was not the area of style that artists focused on the most. It was color and the application of color that was important when creating nature on canvas, the goal for Renaissance artists.

Colorito in Italian is a verb meaning the application of color and the process of painting. Titian’s color is important because it was different from what was being produced, but it was the physical process that was key to the style. The Venetians’ would draw directly on the canvas and create and change their design while painting. The artist “drew on the canvas with charcoal and paint rather than using the complicated drawing process” of the Florentines.[3] Venetians believed that coloring was the closest aspect of painting to nature. It was not disegno or “the muscular energy or movement of the figure…but the coloring – colorito – in all its variety and its blending is source of animation, of the pulse of life and likeness, in Venetian eyes.”[4]

The Venetians produced drawings but these artists did not generate as many drawings on paper as the Florentines, because they worked directly on the canvas. This method of work is what separates the two schools of Italian painting. Where as the Florentines were planning and perfecting their design on paper, the Venetians were instead drawing directly onto canvas. They would alter their design while painting, thus focusing on the brushwork and color that they were applying right onto the canvas. Titian was using an “empirical method, working his way through the design as it laid out on the primed canvas” which was a process he produced “slowly and carefully, always adjusting his forms and paint to achieve a premeditated effect and often strikingly original results.”[5]

Contemporary authors fueled this competition through biographies of artists, letters, and critical writings on the theories of art. These theories centered on the artist’s ability to imitate and copy nature, an idea studied greatly during the humanist and Renaissance times. In some instances “texts on disegno and colorito [in the mid-sixteenth century] probably reveal more about the topoi of literary debate than the practice of the painter with his brushes.”[6]

Giorgio Vasari, an artist and author of The Lives of the Artists, believed that disegno was the key to the perfection and naturalism in art. Vasari saw disegno as the main element of the three main branches of art: painting, architecture and sculpture. The critic saw Michelangelo as the hands sent from God to show the art world perfection and be the leader of the disegno style. Vasari writes that “drawing on paper fills the mind with beautiful conceits and teaches the painter to imagine al objects of Nature without always having to keep his drawings in front of him, or to conceal under the charm of colors his poor knowledge of how to draw.”[7] When looking at Vasari’s Life of Titian, the distinction between the two schools of colorito and disegno can be better understood.

Vasari wrote in his Life of Titian that it would have been better if Titian had learned how to draw like the Florentines. The author does not seem to be blaming Titian for his lack of draftsmanship but instead faults Venice and the line of Venetian artists. The tone of Vasari’s writing is almost sympathetic toward Titian, and he pities his lack of knowledge when trying to understand nature for the realism of his paintings. Vasari does comment highly on Titian’s use of color, however, and seems to believe that Titian’s style of painting is the best to come out of Venice, surpassing the Bellini family, stating “it was [just] a pity artisans in Venice did not learn to draw well from the beginning and that Venetian painters did not have a better method of study.”[8] Also important in the Life of Titian is Vasari’s observation that Titian’s style did change from his early career to his later career. The development of colorito is evident and seemingly goes farther away from disegno than Vasari can appreciate. He wishes Titian to stop painting during his older years so that he would not tarnish his own career. Vasari wrote in many of his Lives that artists had an old-age style and an artist’s judgment changes with age, and that for Titian “his last works are executed with such large and bold brush-strokes and in such broad outlines that they cannot be seen from close up.”[9] This old-age style that Vasari disproves of for Titian is something much more than just growing old but a new style of oil painting that surpasses the artists of the High Renaissance.

Another author and important critical figure of Renaissance Italy is Pietro Aretino. Aretino was a great poet and art critic who influenced the popularity of many artists, including Michelangelo and especially Titian. Aretino is from the small town of Arezzoin Tuscanybut spent the majority of his life in Veniceand wrote many poems and letters concerning how much he loved the city. In one letter to Andrea Gritti the Doge in 1530, Aretino writes that Veniceis “the nurse of all cities and the mother chosen by God to bestow more glory upon the world.”[10]  He had an interesting relationship with Titian; the two were great friends but also “perhaps this association resulted from pure self-interest” and profit for both.[11] Aretino sent Titian to many of the greatest patrons at the time, including Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and the Medici family. In his letters, Aretino writes highly of the color of Titian’s paintings. He explains the artist’s brush as creating life, that one unknown work “the flesh-tints so beautifully painted that they resemble snow streaked with vermillion, and seem to be warm and to pulsate with the very essence of life.”[12] It was a quite the relationship, and through the letters they wrote to each other “they seem to have agreed about everything, from types of feminine beauty to the misdeeds of princes, as well as in all problems of painting techniques.”[13]

Aretino was not solely praising Titian’s style, however, and was also an admirer of Michelangelo and the Florentine style. He would often times send Titian to a patron but then quietly remind these people of Michelangelo’s work. Aretino was also critical of Titian’s late style, such as Vasari. In his portrait done by the artist in 1545, Aretino believed it to be unfinished. This change of style was revolutionary and important but at this time contemporaries like Aretino saw “this daring application of paint, which re-creates the feeling and sense of the material world rather than minutely describing it, [disturbing], leading him to suggest that Titian had left the painting unfinished.”[14] It is important to note that scholars today are careful of Aretino’s writings and criticism because the author seemed to love himself more than anyone else and that his writing was “too much filled with a sense of his own importance to be a reliable reporter.”[15]

The last contemporary author, Lodovico Dolce, was competing with Vasari’s theory on painting. In his work, L’ Aretino, Dolce writes about his thought on painting but it seems his “intention [was] to persuade [his readers] that besides Michelangelo, many have achieved artistic excellence, although the finest remain Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian.”[16] Dolce saw nothing wrong with what Titian was doing with oil painting and believed it was the greatest work being made at the time. Dolce does discuss more than the competition of the two Italian schools, and defines what the meaning of painting is to him. He sees painting as “nothing other that the imitation of art” and its purpose was to “express ‘the thoughts and feelings of the spirit.’”[17] The common theory at this time which Dolce writes about concerns the idea there were three categories to consider when producing a painting: invention, design, and color. His main goal, however, seemed to focus on increasing the fame of Titian and Raphael, and decreasing the power of Michelangelo.

As it can be understood from these three critics, contemporary people understood the distinction and the competition of the two styles. The artists, themselves, were not oblivious to other styles but made conscious decisions to follow one of the two. Titian traveled all over Europe, after 1543, and studied the work of other High Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo and Raphael.[18] He drew and studied many pieces, like the Battle of Cascina by Michelangelo and the Battle of Anghiari by Leonardo da Vinci in Florence (fig.1 & fig. 2). Titian’s development and understanding of colorito was a conscious decision and he did not change his style to be more design focused after his travels. He talked to Vasari and was visited by Michelangelo, so he would have understood disegno, but he did not want to follow the style of the Florentine school. He was not producing sculpture or architectural plans like many central Italians because for Titian it was about the painting alone and all the characteristics, such as brushwork and painting. The commonality of these schools centered on the idea that the end result of a work should imitate and depict nature to the best of the artist’s abilities. As the humanists believed, depicting nature was depicting perfection. The Venetian and Florentines just took different methods to reach this goal.

Titian was aided in the development of colorito by Venice itself.  The city was one of the most important trade routes in all of Europe at this time. The number of immigrants and merchants coming into the city was immense and created a culture emphasized by the amount of difference. Because Venice was an important base for many different cultures coming together, “the Venetian eye was – in consequence – practiced and discriminated as to pattern, color, quality, and material.”[19] The artists’ influences extended beyond antiquity, the main inspiration for cities like Rome, and were influenced also by the styles coming in from the East. The best example of this combination of styles is on the basilica of San Marco in Venice whose façade was “the collage-like assemblage of ‘borrowed’ fragments” so that Venetians could “[appreciate] the visual complexity of the pastiche” of different cultures.[20] This amount of information and material coming intoVenice also would give artisans more freedom and more choices in material and style.

Venetian artists utilized canvas as the base to their paintings. Tied to the fact that Venicewas a ship-building town and the material was more readily available, canvas brought an additional level to the achievement in oil painting, something that Titian would greatly use to his advantage. Canvas is an important to colorito, because there is a focus on the physical application of the paint onto the courser material. It was a relationship between surface and medium that had never been seen before where the “oil paint was either brushed or dragged across it in thin patches to allow texture of the canvas to show through, or else it was applied in thick impasto strokes further to emphasize the surface.”[21]

Venetian artists focused on one medium for their whole career. This was not the way many artists worked elsewhere, where an artist was not just a painter, but also a sculptor and architect. Not every artist would be working in more than one field but artists who were on a similar level of fame as Titian did seem to experiment in other mediums. A comparison between Titian and Michelangelo can explain this even further. Michelangelo is a constant enemy to Titian in the art history field because of their similarities in power but also their extreme difference in style. It is an interesting comparison, however, because their paintings are discussed even though Michelangelo believed himself to be a sculptor above everything else. He was producing plans for many architectural programs and was producing the frescos in the Sistine Chapel at the same time. Michelangelo only completed one painting on panel, the Doni Tondo in 1505, where Titian worked only briefly with fresco and focused his whole career on the perfection of canvas painting (fig.3).

Titian’s birth year is unknown but he was likely to be born around 1490; career as a painter lasted for sixty-eight years.[22] When he moved to Venice at a young age, Titian began studying and working with Giovanni Bellini sometime before 1505. The style of art that the Bellini family had been producing was not what Titian desired to create. Perhaps this was because Giovanni was very old, he died in 1510, and his style might have seemed out of date to Titian. It would be Giorgione’s style that Titian would begin to develop and make his own. There are many instances of Titian completing Giorgione’s work, for example the Sleeping Venus (fig. 4). Titian, however, was not studying directly from the painters before him but took elements of many styles and created his own style to put on the canvas.

Titian had a great knowledge of the city of Veniceand the art that was in the international trade center. Titian studied the great number of mosaics that were present in the city, like the façade of San Marco. Dolce writes that Titian, when he arrived in Veniceat the age of eight, first studied with the mosaicist Zuccato before working in the Bellini studio.[23] This study of mosaics helps the artist with his color choice because mosaics played with light and color. A mosaic had to be planned out prior to its creation with extremely detailed measurement, thus Titian understood preparatory planning. His use of color and colorito would become a conglomerate of all different styles but became something revolutionary.

The Assumption of the Virgin, commissioned in 1516, is the first large scale work that Titian completed it in 1518 for the Basilica of Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari in Venice (fig.5). One of the characteristics that link the Assumption to an early period of Titian’s work is that it is on panel and not canvas, so the style is not the extreme painterly quality of later works. With this panel support, the work is more glossy and precise in style than if it was on a canvas. But the color of this work is revolutionary and Titian used color to create meaning. The entire church is large and highly decorated, but this work stood out among all of the architectural detail. The color of the heavens, painted by Titian, matches the gold detail of the architecture around it. The light created by the color as well as its monumental figures enhance its visibility even though Vasari writes when he visited the church that “little of it can be seen” because he believes it might have been “poorly cared for.”[24]

This work is separated into two episodes, the “the departure of the Virgin from this earth and her reception in Heaven.”[25] What is new about this altarpiece is that within the whole panel there are three realms, “the earth-bound apostles, the soaring Madonna and accompanying angels, and the heavenly dominion of the welcoming God the Father.”[26] Although there are these separate sections, Titian uses his application and choice of color to create a cohesive narrative. This was a new way of approaching this scene. The artist was representing two different moments on one panel and using color as an element tying the two together so it doesn’t become confusing to understand for the viewer.

There are not many different colors but different tones of the same colors in this work. The piece has rosy and golden features that remains the same throughout the whole piece, even though in heaven, it is more greatly displayed. There are connections throughout all three realms with the same colors. The reds of the garments echo through out as do the blue hues, and the piece is “tuned to a full harmony” with these colors.[27] This element brings meaning to moment. These colors lead the viewers’ eyes to move up the painting, perhaps creating the feeling of helping the Virgin along to her rightful throne. She moves in a great sweeping movement, with fabric swirling around her brilliantly, only highlighted more by the same journey of colors. It is this application and “simplification of the coloring [that] enhances the impression of certainty, inevitability, and sanctity.”[28]

Titian’s use of the competition of dark and light supports the impression and drama of this work, which Dolce writes is one of the “principal [parts] of colorito.”[29] At the bottom of the panel the colors are darker so the apostles seem to emerge from the shadows and “stand out like silhouettes.”[30] In Heaven, God is very dark in contrast to the golden burst of heaven that helps him stand out in a sweeping rush. In this work, Titian has used light to enhance his figures as well as enhance the meaning of the moment. The gold light lifts the Virgin upward. God is highlighted against the head of the putti. The light explodes behind of the body of God, who cuts through the painting in a diagonal movement, supported by his cape-like drapery that fades directly into the light.

Even though not as extreme as will be understood in later works, Titian has utilized color in a new way by creating the amazing Assumption of the Virgin. The monks who commissioned this work, however, were taken aback when they viewed it and at first rejected it. The problem that the monks had with this work was the “heightening of the sensual effect” that Titian was creating in this work through his figures. His reality that he displays and “this aesthetic motive endows the picture with a worldly and theatrical element” that was new for this conservative monks who were still used to the medieval style of art not these bold colors and figures that “enhanced expression of a subjective sensual experience.”[31] An example of this sensuality is seen in the putti below and next to the Virgin. These figures are fully fleshed out and pose in a realistic but sensual manner. However, the Assumption of the Virgin was accepted by the monks and is still located in the church today.

Years after the Assumption was completed, Titian completed the work, Venus with a Mirror in 1555 (fig. 6). Titian was a very important portrait artist and also produced many mythological pieces, this work being a mix of the two. The representation of the female nude is one of the most important elements for an artist in Renaissance Italy to perfect. But the idea of naturalism in the form is different between Venice and central Italy. In central Italy, artists studied directly from figures and in many cases, study human cadavers to advance a figure’s realism. Here Titian is showing the ideal woman but through the application of color and the relationship of the medium with the canvas. This type of woman would become the “epitome of the theme” of Venus and the representation of beauty.[32] Dolce wrote, that along with the contrast of dark and light, “the principal difficulty of colorito resides in the imitation of flesh and involves diversifying the tones and in achieving softness” which Titian was perfecting with his Venus.[33]

There are many elements to this work that show how well Titian worked both the medium and the canvas. The mirror becomes an important object to include in painterly quality works. The mirror’s reflective quality led to the painter’s ability “enhance his representation of an object to include a full 360 degrees,” which will help them imitate nature.[34] This quality was important for the method and medium of oil painting and the colorito by being “responsive to the challenge of representing luminosity and surface tension.”[35] This important addition to this style of “the juxtaposition of female flesh and reflecting surface would become especially important to the Venetian development of the oil medium…particularly with the use of a thicker impasto that gave new material substance to the medium.”[36]

Observed in Venus’s garment, Titian’s coloring and brushwork advanced. The red velvet folds perfectly in the light and seems to breathe on the canvas. Titian uses this garment to “[play a] role in enhancing tactile invitation” because of the garment’s “varied textures – of rich velvet, etched embroidery, and, especially, deep fur lining – set off the broad display of her exposed flesh.”[37] To the right of the painting, the black and yellow stripped fabric shows that Titian wanted his brushstrokes to be seen. They are not straight lines by any means, creating the illusion that it is being stepped on, and in many cases there is more paint present on one line then on another. It is a physical work because it remains in the moment of painting that Titian wanted the viewer to experience.

Titian’s style seemed to shift in his mature years from the late 1530s on. He changed his style even more and his work from this period barely echoes that of his early works. The brushwork was more pronounced and his colors more sweeping. His works seem to take an even more personal turn where patronage was not his main goal. When Michelangelo was fighting his salvation in his old age, Titian seemed to be fighting the canvas and paints creating works that have as much a physical story as a literary one.

Contemporary writers did not shy away from this change in Titian’s work and commented on it throughout their writings. Vasari saw this changing style as negative because Titian was moving further and further away from a focus on design. Aretino seemed confused by the change in style. Aretino sent a portrait of himself by Titian to Cosimo de’ Medici along with a note stating that work must just be unfinished (fig. 7). It was not a senile artist who was producing these works; however, it was one who was experimenting and perfecting the medium that had given him much fame.

Perhaps the best example of Titian’s late style and his method of colorito is the Rape of Europa, a painting sent to Phillip II, the King of Spain in 1562 (fig. 8). Titian called this work a “poesie” meaning it was a “poetic [interpretation] of themes of divine love from Greek mythology and Roman sources.”[38] This term goes along with the theory of painting that Dolce discusses in his writings that painting should be the same as a poem just through a different medium, “lines and colors.”[39] There was a mood that painting was supposed to create for the viewer like the lines of a poem would evoke.

It is obvious when observing this work that Titian is getting further away from a non-painterly quality than ever before. This painting shows the development of Titian’s application of color, called pittura di macchia or spot painting.[40] Many scholars see this as second revolution of oil painting. This new application of painting was not only for aesthetic purposes but also brought new meaning to the work. Titian created an experience for the viewer that is brand new, something that they could interact with and see the painting on both an emotional and physical level. Titian made his brushstrokes and sweeping color seen in a way that was never done before. He was interacting with not only the paint but also the canvas, showing how the interaction of base and medium could be used to the artist’s advantage. Examining some of the elements of the Rape of Europa will only make this revolution in painting more apparent.

The color tonalities of this work continually go back to the meaning of the painting. On one side of the work there is a rosy-red color where Titian showcased the under-painting of the painting and created a mood that “evokes the passion of the moment.”[41] Europa is leaving this warm area of her world and being taken into a cold maritime world of dark blue hues. Here is a contrast of dark and light suggests passion but also the known and unknown worlds.

An important moment for the central Italians during the early Renaissance was depicting atmospheric perspective. These early Renaissance painters utilized mathematics and linear details to create perspective that enhanced the realism of the work. Titian utilized his paint to show atmospheric pressure rather than the techniques of the central Italian artists. In this work, it is “the very build-up of paint [that] brings the object rendered that much closer to the viewer.”[42] In the other direction, with the objects far away have very little paint and the canvas shows through much more so much so the viewer has a new experience with the painting then ever before because they are “invited not to stand back and squint until a focused illusion is obtained, but rather to approach, to respond to the tactile appeal of articulated stroke and surface.”[43]

This is a painting about physical desire and Titian created a very physical painting, a canvas that the viewers had to interact with, a tactile experience. The visible, sweeping brushstrokes only highlight the moment of the story, when Europa is being swept away. The figure of Europa is also another great example from this work that shows the progression of colorito. It was the process of applying the paint that brought another level of meaning to this work. Titian, along with a brush, used his fingers to create the full, fleshy figure. It was the “vivid, fluid effects he sought, conveys through color the emotion at the heart of the painting.”[44]

The Rape of Europa was copied many times by great artists and inspired entire movements of art because of this new painterly style that had never been seen before. It was a piece composed of many elements, each of which was “a gleam of light, a strip of color which passes before [ones] eyes like a dream.”[45] What is so amazing about this work is that it was produced by a man whose style surpassed the influence of the ancients and other Italian masters. Titian was on another level from his contemporaries and his colorito will forever be his greatest accomplishment.

Titian’s development of colorito was a conscious decision. He traveled through Italy and met artists such as Michelangelo and understood a style with focus on disegno. He experimented with brushwork and color to create a mood and tone in his work. His paintings changed ideas in the theories of art that had been so important in Renaissance Italy. Though his brushwork did change and become more physical during the later years, his colorito was evident in his early compositions as well, seen in the importance of color in the Assumption of the Virgin. He made his color and brushwork a character in his works that only emphasized the meaning and mood of the paintings. It was his ability to utilize color to its extremes, something “he never tortured or forced, but let it stream out free and unfettered” leading him to be “the first painter to entrust his power of expression almost entirely to color.”[46]

This rivalry of two major schools of painting from two powerful cities can be seen not only in the painting and drawings of the artists but also in the way art was produced and the bickering of contemporary writers. Titian was in the center of this competition with central Italians, especially Michelangelo, but the paintings that Titian created were something revolutionary that had never been seen before. His paintings and had meaning through the color and how he worked the paint. He advanced oil painting and worked with the physical aspects of the canvas to create an entire new level for the viewer’s experience. This sweeping visibility of his brushwork progressed throughout his career when it got to a point where his style was drastically different. However, all of Titian’s paintings, early or late, commissioned or not, had one thing in common: color being a complete character in the work and bringing all the elements together into a beautiful and emotional design.

Titian’s development of colorito was a conscious decision. He traveled through Italy and met artists such as Michelangelo. He experimented with brushwork and color to create a mood and tone in his work. His paintings changed ideas in the theories of art that had been so important in Renaissance Italy. Though his brushwork did change and become more physical during the later years, his colorito was evident in his early compositions as well, seen in the importance of color in theAssumption of the Virgin. He made his color and brushwork a character in his works that only emphasized the meaning and mood of the paintings. It was his ability to utilize color to its extremes, something “he never tortured or forced, but let it stream out free and unfettered” leading him to be “the first painter to entrust his power of expression almost entirely to color.”[i]

This rivalry of two major schools of painting from two powerful cities can be seen not only in the painting and drawings of the artists but also in the way art was produced and the bickering of contemporary writers. Titian was in the center of this competition with central Italians, especially Michelangelo, but the paintings that Titian created were something revolutionary that had never been seen before. His paintings breathed and had meaning through the color and how he worked the paint. He advanced oil painting and worked with the physical aspects of the canvas to create an entire new level for the viewer’s experience. This sweeping visibility of his brushwork progressed throughout his career when it got to a point where paintings looked drastically different. However, all of Titian’s paintings, early or late, commissioned or not, had one thing in common: color being a complete character in the work and bringing all the elements together into a beautiful and emotional design.

Many critics believe that many artists have an “old-age” style in their later works. Titian’s style did seem to shift in his mature years from the late 1530s on. He changed his style even more and his work from this period barely echoes that of his early works. The brushwork was more pronounced and his colors more sweeping. When Michelangelo was fighting his salvation in his old age, Titian seemed to be fighting the canvas and paints creating works that have as much a physical story as a literary one.

Contemporary writers did not shy away from this change in Titian’s work and commented on it throughout their writings. The development of colorito is evident and seemingly goes farther away from disegno than Giorgio Vasari could appreciate. He wishes Titian to stop painting during his older years so that he would not tarnish his own career. Vasari wrote in many of his Lives that artists had an old-age style and an artist’s judgment changes with age, and that for Titian “his last works are executed with such large and bold brush-strokes and in such broad outlines that they cannot be seen from close up but appear perfect from a distance.”[i]

Pietro Aretino also seemed confused by the change in Titian’s work. In his portrait done by the artist, Aretino believed it to be unfinished. This change of style was revolutionary and important but at this time contemporaries like Aretino saw “this daring application of paint, which re-creates the feeling and sense of the material world rather than minutely describing it, [disturbing], leading him to suggest that Titian had left the painting unfinished,” which he wrote in a letter to Cosimo de’ Medici.[ii]

It was not a senile artist who was producing these works; however, it was one who was experimenting and perfecting the medium that had given him much fame.