Reframing the "Finestra Aperta".

Venetian Variations on the Comparison of Picture and

Window
Author(s): Johannes Grave
Source: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte , 2009, 72. Bd., H. 1 (2009), pp. 49-68
Published by: Deutscher Kunstverlag GmbH Munchen Berlin

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/40379390

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Deutscher Kunstverlag GmbH Munchen Berlin is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Johannes Grave

Refraining the »finestra aperta«.

Venetian Variations on the Comparison of Picture and Window""

In his treatise De pictura of 1435, Leon Battista
Alberti not only describes the fundamentals and
procedures of painting, but also discusses what a
picture is. In the first of his three books, Alberti
offers what is perhaps the most widely known
definition of the early modern concept of a pic-
ture: »First of all, on the surface on which I am
going to paint, I draw a rectangle of whatever
size I want, which I regard as an open window
through which the historia is seen.«:
Alberti's rather casual description is generally
regarded as the origin of the metaphorical com-
parison of the window and picture which has
significantly shaped modern thinking about im-
ages. As the window comparison influenced the
discourse about images over time, the postulated
relationship between a window and picture in-
creasingly became a matter of fact. Yet what are
the characteristics that make a window appear
comparable to a picture? And when Alberti
spoke of an open window, did he >picture< the
same object we imagine when we read his treatise
today?
Although Alberti's comparison might seem
straightforward at first glance, it actually poses
more questions than it answers. His words seem
to suggest a new potential of a picture that opens
a transparent view of a depicted scene so that the
viewer forgets the medium itself and its condi-
tions.2 However, this interpretation of Alberti's
brief description is based on a concept of the
window which was certainly not obvious in the
quattrocento. Gerard Wajcman and Anne Fried-
berg, for example, have pointed out that the
forms and types of windows, with which Alberti
was familiar in his practical and theoretical study
of architecture, were neither transparent nor rec-
tangular as described in his treatise De pictura?
In the quattrocento, windows were not made of
large, transparent glass panes, nor were they
generally constructed in a rectangular form. In
addition to these historical details, comparing a
picture to a window results in a number of other
problems. If a picture were regarded as an open
window, we would have to clarify its relation-
ship to architecture, or more specifically, to a
wall on which it hangs or is standing against.
What status of reality can the depicted scenes in
a picture attain if viewing it is comparable to
looking out of a window?
Earlier in his treatise, Alberti compares the
surface of a picture with the cross-section of a
visual pyramid, and then likens this cross-section
with a transparent glass surface. Therefore, it

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the
Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society
of America on March 24, 2007. I'm grateful to Andreas
Beyer, Gerd Blum and Matteo Burioni for helpful sug-
gestions. Robert Brambeer provided indispensable help
in preparing the English version of this text.
1 Alberti, De pictura I, 19; Cecil Grayson (ed.), Leon
Battista Alberti. On Painting and Sculpture. The Latin
Texts of De Pictura and De Statua Edited with Trans-
lations, Introduction and Notes, London 1972, 55; the
translation has been slightly modified.
2 See Klaus Kriiger, Das Bild als Schleier des Unsicht-
baren. Asthetische Illusion in der Kunst der fru'hen
Neuzeit in Italien, Miinchen 2001, 34; and Lambert
Wiesing, Fenster, Fernseher und Windows, in: Lambert
Wiesing, Artifizielle Prdsenz. Studien zur Philosophie
des Bildes, Frankfurt a.M. 2005, 99-106. For a funda-
mentally different interpretation of Alberti's window-
metaphor see Joseph Masheck, Alberti's »Window«.
Art-Historiographic Note on an Antimodernist Mis-
prision, in: Art Journal 50/1, 1991, 35 - 41. Alberti's
window-picture comparison should be distinguished
from technical devices such as the velo or the perspec-
tive window; see James Elkins, The Poetics of Perspec-
tive -, Ithaca 1994, 46-52.
3 Gerard Wajcman, Fenetre. Chroniques du regard et de
Vintime, Lagrasse 2004, 51-80; and Anne Friedberg,
The Virtual Window. From Alberti to Microsoft, Cam-
bridge (Mass.) 2006, 26-35.

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009 49

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
would seem the window metaphor emphasizes To find answers to these questions, it is im-
the almost perfect transparency of a picture.4 perative to assess the viewer's distance from that
However, Alberti seems to have overlooked an which is portrayed. Alberti's concept of the win-
important dimension of meaning behind the dow-picture assumes a certain distance which the
window-picture relationship, because a window recipient is not supposed to consciously realize.
is inconceivable without an architectural context, In order to create the illusion of looking through
in particular, without an enclosing wall. There- a window, the picture has to ensure that it won't
fore, the intentional, carefully considered use of be touched by the viewer. Although the viewer is
the window-picture concept does not necessarily not permitted to cross the distance to the picture
imply that the picture is an ideal medium of and the image therein, it is a distance that is
transparent representation. Rather, it equally re- perfectly quantifiable. For Alberti, the picture
fers to the wall which is assumed by the existence presents the scene as being potentially reachable,
of the window. The picture could then be viewed yet has to protect itself from the realization of
as a two-dimensional, opaque object.5 From the this virtual accessibility. This certainly does not
start, Alberti's window-picture comparison is imply that every picture is an illusionistic rep-
characterized by potential ambiguity which is resentation which gives the impression that the
not considered in the treatise De pictura itself. pictorial space and real space merge. The win-
The picture as an open window is a concept dow-picture comparison, however, suggests that
Alberti tied to the new possibilities of represen- the structure of the space in front of the picture
tation using his prescribed central perspective. If and the space portrayed by the picture are based
we look at the paintings of the quattrocento, it on the same principles.6 Alberti also postulated
appears that the central perspective was mainly that »both the viewers and the objects in the
used for pictures with a divine, religious subject. painting will seem to be on the same plane«,7
Many of these pictures depict saints or scenes which he stressed as one of the main effects of
of salvific history whose appearance and reality the central-perspective construction. In line with
status were made to be clearly distinguishable the geometrically constructed perspective as the
from the viewer's here and now. Yet how could basic arrangement of representation, Alberti's
Alberti's window-picture be used to represent picture contains no incommensurability, no
divine or otherworldly subjects? How could one spaces or zones that elude a comprehensive
differentiate the categorically different levels of measurability.8 Within this pictorial concept, the
reality and various modes of seeing by means of viewer's distance from the picture is precisely
Alberti's pictorial concept? determined by the perspective construction, the

4 Klaus Kriiger and Barnaby Nygren have pointed out 8 This characteristic of perspective has been pointed
that there is a subtle difference between Alberti's no- out by several scholars, e.g., Joel Snyder, Picturing
tion of the window-image and the metaphor of the Vision, in: Critical Inquiry 6/3, 1980, 499-526; and
plane of glass; see Kriiger (as note 2), 29-34; and Bar- Daniel Arasse, Perspective reguliere: Rupture histo-
naby Nygren, Fra Angelico's San Marco Altarpiece and rique?, in: Jean Galard (ed.), Ruptures. De la discon-
tinuite dans la vie artistique, Paris 2002, 58-71.
the Metaphors of Perspective, in: Source 22/1, 2002/03,
25-32. 9 Alberti, De pictura, II, 25; Grayson (as note 1), 61.
5 Louis Marin has written numerous texts on the 10 rela-
Walter Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner
tionship between transparency and opacity of pictures;technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in: Walter Benjamin,
see, e. g., Louis Marin, Mimesis et description, in: Louis
Gesammelte Schriften, vol. I/2, ed. Rolf Tiedemann
Marin, De la representation, ed. Daniel Arasse et al, Hermann Schweppenhauser, Frankfurt a.M.
and
Paris 1994, 251-266; and Louis Marin, De Ventretien,2i978, 471-508, esp. 480, n. 7: »[...] einmalige Er-
Paris 1997, 59-73. scheinung einer Feme, so nah sie sein mag [...]«.
6 See, e. g., John Shearman, Only connect. . . Art 11
andSee
theAlberti, De re aedificatoria, 1. 12; Leon Battista
Spectator in the Italian Renaissance, Princeton 1 992, 67.
Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, trans.
7 Alberti, De pictura, I, 19; Grayson (ed.), Leon Battista
Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavernor,
Alherti (as note 1), 55. Cambridge (Mass.) 1988, 28. - Alberti does not ex-

5° Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
result being that the portrayed scenes appear to Alberti's De re aedificatoria, is to provide light
be reachable, graspable or really happening. and air,11 the window was a Christian allegorical
But what if it is inappropriate to create this figura that could symbolize the threshold to the
accessibility and reachability to the portrayed absolute Other, to God. Mary for the most part,
scene? Is Alberti's pictorial concept applicable to but also Christ, were often described as fenestra
other subjects that are (as a matter of principle) coeli in hymns and allegorical writings based on
inaccessible to the viewer and are not based on biblical texts, such as the Song of Songs.12 There-
the usual logic of space and time? In otherfore, Alberti's window-picture could be regarded
words, how can insurmountable distances beas a basic challenge to cases in which the picture
represented which have no corresponding mea- was meant to represent the absolute Other and
surable length? Although Alberti praises painting the window was mainly considered an allegorical
for being able to »make the absent present« andfigure.
allowing even to represent »the dead to the living
many centuries later«,9 surmounting one's bonds
Giovanni Bellini: The mise en abyme
to the here and now says nothing about how one
can reflect on the distinction between the world- of the window-picture comparison

ly and otherworldly in a picture. While AlbertiGiovanni Bellini's altarpiece he made for the
emphasizes the effect of >presence< in images,church of San Francesco in Pesaro (fig. 1)13 ap-
there are a large number of Christian subjectspears to have several aspects in common with
whose depictions are clearly inaccessible. In aAlberti's considerations. The altar is dominated
religious context, an image is characterized -by a large, rectangular central panel painting, a
using Walter Benjamin's words - by a »unique quadrangulum, using Alberti's term, accompa-
appearance of distance regardless of how close itnied by a predella, small panels on the pilasters
may be.«IQ Alberti's concept strengthens the and, probably, a mounted picture on top.14 Clas-
accessibility to the picture as it lets the viewer sical architectural forms do not only play a
forget its medial conditions, the connection to prominent role in the structure of the altarpiece,
the material, the surface, to a wall or table. Hisbut also in the central painting itself. The ground
window-picture comparison not only stands atwith its rich, varied pattern allows the viewer to
odds with the concept of the cultic image, butfathom the central perspective and provides the
also competes with the established notions of the pictorial space a measurable depth. The lavish
window. In addition to the architectural conceptthrone, also characterized by classical architec-
of a window, the function of which, according to ture, dominates the picture. The artist also in-

plicitly mention that windows could serve to offer on the altarpiece around 1475; see Carolyn Campbell
outside views. Only a few paragraphs of De re aedifi- Wilson, Bellini's Pesaro Altarpiece. A Study in Con-
catoria (e.g., V. 17) are dealing with specific architec- text and Meaning, Ann Arbor 1977, 490-492; Rona
tural arrangements for the prospectus; see Gerd Goffen, Giovanni Bellini, New Haven 1989, 122; and
Blum, Fenestra prospectiva. Das Fenster als symboli- Maria Rosaria Valazzi, Giovanni Bellini e la pala di
sche Form bei Leon Battista Alberti und im Herzogs- Pesaro, in: Valter Curzi (ed.), Pittura veneta nelle
palast von Urbino, in: Joachim Poeschke and Candida Marche, Cinisello Balsamo 2000, 101-115, esp. 112-
Syndikus (eds.), Leon Battista Alberti. Humanist, 114; Oskar Batschmann, Giovanni Bellini, London
Architekt, Kunsttheoretiker, Miinster 2008, 77-122. 2008, 150.
12 See Carla Gottlieb, The Window in Art. From the14 It is still a matter of discussion whether the Pieta of
Window of God to the Vanity of Man. A Survey of the Pinacoteca Vaticana should be regarded as part of
Window Symbolism in Western Painting, New York the Pala di Pesaro; see Wilson (as note 13), 279-292,
198 1, esp. 69-82; Sixten Ringbom, Icon to Narrative. 348-353, 413-421; Maria Rosaria Valazzi (ed.), La
The Rise of Dramatic Close-Up in Fifteenth Century pala ricostituita. Uincoronazione della Vergine e la
Devotional Painting, Doornspijk ^984, 42-43. cimasa vaticana di Giovanni Bellini. Indagini e
13 There is no written documentation verifying the date restauri, Venezia 1988; Valazzi (as note 13), 106.
of Bellini's Pala di Pesaro. Most likely, Bellini worked

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009 5 1

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
eluded a view of a fortress in the background. question what seems to be a clear hierarchical
Despite how well-constructed the pictorial space arrangement consisting of a dominant altarpiece
is and how realistically portrayed the figures are, architecture, panel paintings and individual levels
the viewer cannot help noticing certain pictorial within the middle panel. In its similarity to the
elements, e.g., the Holy Spirit in the form of a frame of the altar painting, the back of the throne
dove and the heads of the cherubim in the functions like a mise en abyme within the pic-
clouds, which weaken the reality status ofture.
the A characteristic feature of the entire paint-
ing, the frame, appears as a part of the represent-
picture. The central motif of the picture, Mary's
coronation and the company of saints with ed scene. Thus, the hierarchy between the entire
whom she has formed a sacra conversazione, is
representation and represented parts, which
clearly a reference to a heavenly occurrence.should
The be established by means of the frame, is
question the viewer is confronted with is, subverted.
in The effect of the mise en abyme,
what way was Bellini able to depict this event
therefore, inevitably disrupts the stringency and
economy of the representation.17
with pictorial techniques as described in Alberti's
treatise? Art historians who have studied Bel- Bellini's inclusion of the back of the throne
does not only establish a mise en abyme. The
lini's Pesaro Altarpiece are familiar with the
problems that arise from this form of represen- structural analogy between the back of the
tation. Norbert Huse, for instance, noted thatthrone and the altarpiece gives us reason to con-
Bellini »moved the coronation from heaven to clude that the reality status of the fortress framed
earth«.15 Only the fact that the picture's archi-
by the throne is comparable to the reality status
tecture is »unlike any real building« prevents of the painting on the whole. Yet, in what way is
»profanation«.16 the viewer shown the fortress? Scholars have
A key to understanding the picture lies in thesuggested several possible ways to interpret its
conspicous design of the throne. Despite all theappearance.18 The idea that it could be a reflec-
slight deviations in detail, the back of the throne tion in a mirror was rejected because Christ and
unmistakably mirrors the structure of the altar- Mary are not reflected in it. Most of the inter-
piece, so that any interpretation of the thronepretations suggest that the back of the throne is
corresponds to that of the entire pala. However, an opening in a stone frame. Of course, many
the fact that just one element of the picture have considered the possibility that there is a pic-
resembles the picture in its entirety creates ature in the middle of the throne. Even at closer
problem for the receptive process. The frame-inspection, there seems to be no conclusive
like design of the back of the throne with the answer to this question. The mountains sur-
fortress in its center is not merely a reflexiverounding the fortress are also hinted at outside
reference to the picture itself, but also calls into the frame which would suggest there is, in fact,

15 Norbert Huse, Studien zu Giovanni Bellini, Berlin
1972, 29.
16 Huse (as note 15), 29-30, see also Deborah Howard,
Bellini and Architecture, in: Peter Humfrey (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Giovanni Bellini, Cam-
bridge 2004, 143-166, esp. 149. 18
17 For definitions and analyses of the mise en abyme,
see, e. g., Lucien Dallenbach, Le recit speculaire. Con-
tribution a V etude de la mise en abyme, Paris 1977;
Lucien Dallenbach, Reflexivity and Reading, in: New
Literary History 11/3, 1980, 435-449; Mieke Bal,
Mise en abyme et iconicite, in: Litter ature. Revue tri-
mestrielle 29, 1978, 116- 128; and Moshe Ron, The
Restricted Abyss. Nine Problems in the Theory of
Mise en Abyme, in: Poetics today 8/2, 1987, 417-438.
An alternative definition was recently proposed by
Paisley Livingston, Nested Art, in: The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61/3, 2003, 233-245, esp.
240.
See Giles Robertson, Giovanni Bellini, Oxford 1968,
70; Wilson (as note 13), 161 -164; Gottlieb (as
note 12), 77-78; Goffen (as note 13), 133; and Clau-
dia Cieri Via, A proposito della pala di Giovanni Bel-
lini a Pesaro. Considerazioni sulla simbologia del
quadro d'altare, in: Antonio Cadei et al. (eds.), Arte
d'Occidente. Temi e metodi. Studi in onore di Angiola
Maria Romanini, 3 vols., Rome 1999, here vol. 3,
1031-1041, esp. 1036.

52 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 i. Giovanni Bellini, Coronation of the Virgin (Pala di Pesaro), oil and tempera on wood,
c. 1475, 2^2 x 24° cm (central panel). Pesaro, Museo Civico

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009 c -5

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
a window-like opening in the back of the throne. torians have identified (though not completely
It is strange, however, that the fortress is very convincingly) as the Gradara Fortress near Pe-
calculated, yesy almost picture-perfectly situated saro.22 The viewers are confronted with the ques-
within the frame and that the unusual, thin- tion of whether they are looking at a real fortress
streaked clouds in the sky do not continue out- through an opening or merely looking at a pic-
side it. If we conclude from these observations ture of one. More importantly, the beholder
that we can suddenly perceive as a picture whatquestions the reality status of the entire picture
previously seemed to be a window, the lack of because of the throne's function as the mise en
depth of the innermost frame strengthens this abyme of the picture. If the architectural framing
impression. Such a combination of furniture andand the central perspective of the pictorial space
picture may remind the viewer of spalliera paint- initially suggest that the altar painting is com-
ings which were designed as integral parts of a pletely comparable to a window and the depicted
lettuccio or cassone.19 In this case, however, wescenery adheres to the spatial logic with which
notice that the backrest is lacking the supporting we are familiar, then the analogy between the
wall against which it usually leans. Where we back of the throne and the entire altarpiece
might expect a wall, we actually see the con- would call this impression into question. The
tinuing silhouette of the mountains. In the end,large panel painting would then no longer appear
the viewer has to accept the fact that there is no only as an open window in Alberti's sense. Be-
irrefutable interpretation regarding the appear-cause of the uncertain status of the depicted for-
ance of the fortress - be it a window or picture.tress, our view of the entire altar painting alter-
Bellini obviously wanted to achieve this ambig- nates between a transparent window and opaque
uous visual effect. Eugenio Battisti and Deborahpainted surface. Through his unique design of
Howard were right to emphasize that Bellinithe throne, Bellini combines two aesthetic strate-
consciously utilized the ambiguity of the win- gies - the mise en abyme with its reflexive ref-
dow and picture to produce a feeling of uncer- erence to the entire painting and the oscillation
tainty in the viewer.20 And even as long ago as between the window view and picture. In this
1899, Roger Fry pointed out that the effect Belli- way, the viewer discovers that the suggested win-
ni produced is reminiscent of perplexing mirrordow view is actually the result of a two-dimen-
effects that astonish the beholder: »For here thesional opaque picture, while at the same time,
landscape has by virtue of the carved framerecognizes that the depiction does not comply
which encloses it, something of the unfamiliarity with the familiar logic of the here and now.
and impressiveness of a landscape seen unexpec- The other panels of the altarpiece also demon-
tedly in a mirror.«21 strate similar forms of oscillation between optical
But what could be the purpose of such con- illusions and two-dimensional painting. Especial-
fusion in a picture which otherwise appears so ly the eight smaller pictures on the pilasters have
perfectly constructed and well arranged? The an illusory effect in that they are all subjected to
resulting oscillation between these poles when the same lighting and perspective. Some of the
viewing the picture not only affects the inter- saints' attributes even go beyond the borders of
pretation of the fortress, which various art his-the niches, creating what appears to be a continu-

19 See Anne B. Barriault, Spalliera Paintings of Renais-
sance Tuscany. Fables of Poets for Patrician Houses,
University Park (Pa.) 1994; and Maddalena Trionfi
Honorati, A proposito del >lettuccio<, in: Antichita
viva 20/3, 1980, 39-47.
20 See Eugenio Battisti, Ricostruendo la complessita, in:
Valazzi (as note 14), 6-14, esp. 8; Howard (as
note 16), 150; and Blum (as note 11), 114- 117. Blum
shows that the design of the frame gives further evi-
dence of the ambiguity between picture and window.
The large rectangular frame not only corresponds to
Alberti's concept of the picture, but also shows strik-
ing parallels to window frames of the Palazzo Ducale
in Urbino (giardino pensile) and of the Palazzo Sforza
(Palazzo Prefettizio) in Pesaro.

54 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
urn between the pictorial space and the space of
the viewer (fig. 2). The fact that the portrayed
figures significantly differ in size compared to
those in the main panel, and that the pictures are
applied to two pilasters reveal that they are two-
dimensional paintings. Both in the main panel
and the altarpiece's entire arrangement, Bellini
worked hard to create effects of >presence< while
at the same time, attempted to counteract the
effect of forced pictorial transparency in key
positions in the picture. What is especially signif-
icant, however, is that he does not permanently
destroy the illusory effect with any single act of
disillusionment. The parts of the picture which
could appear two-dimensional and opaque, as
the example of the back of the throne demon-
strates, can also be related to the logic of the pic-
torial illusion.
The closer analysis of the Pala di Pesaro shows
that Bellini's work is not completely consistent
with Alberti's window-picture concept. None-
theless, the placement of the fortress in the back
of the throne inevitably calls to mind Alberti's
description of the picture as an open window. It
is practically impossible to verify whether Gio-
vanni Bellini was familiar with Alberti's De pic-
tura. Yet it is probable Bellini had heard about
Alberti's treatise, as there is evidence that his
father Jacopo and brother-in-law Andrea Man-
tegna were familiar with Alberti's ideas, and,
perhaps, were even acquainted with him per-
sonally.
Jacopo Bellini's two sketchbooks, located in
Paris and London today, contain drawings with
several characteristics that have led scholars to
believe they may have been influenced by Alber-
ti's treatise. Despite minor deviations in detail,
one can recognize Alberti's major concepts in the
almost demonstrative (though not always accu- 2. Giovanni Bellini, St. Catherine
rate) perspective construction of the pictorial (part of the Pala di Pesaro), oil and tempera on wood,
space, in the conspicuous variation of the figures' c. 1475,61X25 cm. Pesaro, Museo Civico

21 Roger E. Fry, Giovanni Bellini, New York 1995 161-209; Patrizia Castelli, »Imago potestatis«. Potere
(reprint of the 1st edn London 1899), 36. civile e religioso nella Pala Pesarese del Giambellino,
22 The ongoing discussion on the identification or the in: Valazzi (as note 14), 15-28, esp. 18; and Anchise
fortress is summarized by Wilson (as note 13), Tempestini, Giovanni Bellini, Milan 2000, 63.

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009 5 5

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

3. Jacopo Bellini, Lamentation of Christ,
silverpoint, brown ink, c. 1455, 42,5 x 28,8 cm.
Paris, Musee du Louvre
facial expressions, gestures and postures, and in
experiments with various forms of pictorial nar-
ration.23 In 1 44 1, Jacopo Bellini resided in Fer-
rara to participate in an artists' competition with
Pisanello. There, Giovanni Bellini's father could
have heard about Alberti's painting treatise as
Alberti himself had maintained close contacts
with the Este court around 1440.24 Furthermore,
there is scattered evidence indicating the Ferra-
rese were familiar with his painting treatise.25
It is difficult to determine how well Jacopo
Bellini remembered Alberti's concept of the pic-
ture as an open window and to what extent he
made it a theme of his own reflections. The refer-
ence to this concept in Filarete's architectural
treatise (book XXIII) is evidence, however, that
Alberti's window-picture comparison was taken
up by some of his contemporaries.26 Perhaps the
window-picture analogy had already become
widely established. Yet if this were truly the case,
it would not have been necessary to study Alber-
ti's treatise in order to become acquainted with
this comparison.
The claim that Jacopo Bellini was somehow
familiar with considerations regarding the win-
dow-picture is supported by several significant
features in his sketchbooks, in particular his
marked interest in depicting views through and
out of openings and his examination of the
frame-picture relationship. He worked on pic-
torial elements which had to be of crucial impor-
tance if he was indeed trying to bring the con-
cepts of the picture and window closer together
or separate them from one another. For instance,
in a drawing depicting the Lamentation of Christ
(fig. 3), he experiments with the receptive-aes-
thetic effect of a classically framed, rectangular
panel.27 Jacopo Bellini also experimented with
window-like effects in several drawings, empha-
sizing background occurrences by framing them
with an arched structure in the foreground. This

24 See Eisler (as note 23), 197. - Some years before, in

23 See Samuel Y. Edgerton, Alberti's Perspective: A New
Discovery and a New Evaluation, in: Art Bulletin 1437, Alberti stayed for a short time in Venice. But
48/3, 1966, 367-378, esp. 375-377; Christiane L. there is no documentary evidence that he became
Joost-Gaugier, The Tuscanization of Jacopo Bellini. acquainted with Venetian painters; see, e. g., Girolamo
Part II: The Relation of Jacopo Bellini to Problems of Mancini, Vita di Leon Battista Alberti, Florence
the 1430's and 1440*5, in: Ada Historiae Artium 23/3, 2i9ii, 139-141; Luca Boschetto, Leon Battista Alber-
1977, 291-313, esp. 294-301; Colin Eisler, The Gen- ti e Firenze. Biografia, storia, letteratura, Florence
ius of Jacopo Bellini. The Complete Paintings and 2000, 114; and Lucia Bertolini, Leon Battista Alberti,
Drawings, New York 1989, esp. 87 and 443-448. For in: Nuova informazione bibliografica 1/2, 2004, 245-
more on Jacopo Bellini's application of perspective, 287, esp. 254.
see Bernhard Degenhart and Annegrit Schmitt, Cor-25 There are traces of a reception of De pictura in De
pus der italienischen Zeichnungen 1300-1450, politia litteraria by the Ferrarese humanist Angelo
vol. 11/ y. Jacopo Bellini. Text, Berlin 1990, 59-94. Decembrio, see Michael Baxandall, A Dialogue on

56 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KUNSTGESCHICHTE 72. Band/2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
technique is particularly evident on a sheet de-
picting the Sermon of John the Baptist (fig. 4).28
It is obvious Bellini consciously used the arch
motif in this drawing to create ambiguity. The
function of the arch oscillates between the archi-
tecture within the picture and that of the frame
of the sketched scene. This ambiguity is also due
to the fact that the very first level of the picture,
i.e., the surface of the drawing, and the front side
of the arch are merged into one. Furthermore,
the lavishly decorated and detailed archway
resembles more of a portal rather than a free-
standing triumphal arch in a city. At the very
bottom of the foreground, Bellini himself hints
at a threshold of checkered stonework which the
viewer would hardly expect in an urban environ-
ment. Rather, the threshold gives the impression
of being part of a frame. Since the artistic exe-
cution of this drawing reveals no recognizable
differences in material nor differentiation be-
tween the sketched depiction and the three-
dimensional elements, it remains unclear whether
the arch represents an architectural feature with-
in the picture or is itself the frame for the image
within. Drawings like this indicate that Jacopo
4. Jacopo Bellini, Saint John the Baptist Preaching,
Bellini critical examined the concept of the win- brown ink, c. 1440, 42,5 x 28,8 cm.
dow-picture comparison in his sketchbooks to Paris, Musee du Louvre
some extent.29 Given the ambivalence of the arch
motif, there is no way to completely clarify the
relationship between the viewer's space, the pic- andall, Hans Belting, Keith Christiansen and
ture-frame and the image. Jack M. Greenstein, regard Mantegna as a painter
Andrea Mantegna appears to have been even who ideally fits Alberti's image of the artist,30
more influenced by the basic concepts in Alber- Leo Steinberg has shown that, in some cases,
ti's painting treatise than Jacopo Bellini. While aMantegna's adaptation of Alberti's principles
large group of scholars, including Michael Bax- could actually have a critical character. For exam-

Art from the Court of Leonello d'Este. Angelo York 2000, 189-224; Franco and Stefano Borsi, Al-
Decembrio's De politia Litteraria Pars LXVIII, in: berti. Une biographie intellectuelle, trans. Katia Bien-
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes venu, Paris 2006, 83-91.
26/3, 1963, 304-326. A manuscript of the treatise, 26 Anna Maria Finoli and Liliana Grassi (eds.), Antonio
stored at the Biblioteca Classense in Ravenna, con- Averlino. Trattato di architettura, 2 vols., Milan 1972,
tains marginal notes by Lodovico Carbone and Bat- here vol. 2, 650-651.
tista Panetti, both prominent members of the d'Este 27 Eisler (as note 23), 352-353; Bernhard Degenhart and
circle in Ferrara. See Edgerton (as note 23); and Katja Annegrit Schmitt, Corpus der italienischen Zeichnun-
Conradi, Malerei am Hofe der Este. Cosme Tura, gen 1300-1450, vol. II/6: Jacopo Bellini. Katalog,
Francesco del Cossa, Ercole dey Roberti, Hildesheim Berlin 1990, 303-310.
1997, 116. For more on Alberti's connections with 28 Eisler (as note 23), 403 and 414; Degenhart/Schmitt
Ferrara, see also Anthony Grafton, Leon Battista Al- (as note 27), 315-316.
berti. Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance, New 29 See Joost-Gaugier (as note 23), 299.

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009 57

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 5- Andrea Mantegna, Saint James led to Martyrdom, fresco, c. 1454-5.
Formerly: Padua, Chiesa degli Eremitani, Ovetari Chapel

58 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
pie, in his fresco in the Mantuan Ovetari Chapel
depicting St. Jacob on his way to his execution
(fig. 5), Mantegna painted several depth contours
on the magnificent triumphal arch that are so
perfectly vertical they give no impression of pic-
torial depth. As these contours run parallel to the
outside borders of the picture, they actually
emphasize its two-dimensionality.31 If Mantegna
had known about Alberti's treatise this early in
his artistic career, this would mean he had fol-
lowed Alberti's recommendations concerning the
use of central perspective in order to create an
effect that contradicted Alberti's intention.
Although there are no remaining records of
the reception of Alberti's painting treatise in
Venice, it is likely that Giovanni Bellini had
become acquainted with its basic ideas through
his father Jacopo, or at the latest, through An-
drea Mantegna. Moreover, a discussion of the
window-picture comparison did not necessarily
depend on the reception of Alberti's treatise. Ei-
ther Jacopo Bellini or Mantegna could have
sparked a critical debate about the concept of the
image that was implied by the analogy between
the picture and window. In particular, Jacopo
Bellini's sketches indicate that his reflections on
the window-picture comparison led him in a
new direction continued by his son Giovanni
Bellini in the Pesaro Altarpiece. In the same way
Jacopo Bellini used the window-picture parallel
to create ambiguity with the arch motif in his
sketch of the sermon of John the Baptist, Gio-
a practically inconclusive process of reception in
motion. At the same time, this strategy calls into
question the measurable, depicted distance sepa-
rating the viewer from the painted image.
Giovanni Bellini must have believed this re-
ceptive-aesthetic subversion of the window-pic-
ture comparison was essential for the subject of
his picture. Although the setting of Mary's coro-
nation may seem earth-bound and worldly, Belli-
ni must have felt it necessary to portray the fun-
damentally different reality status. This divine
event, which is presented from what seems to be
the objective perspective of a knowledgeable
observer, turns out at closer inspection to be far
from perfectly understandable. The central image
of the fortress - at one moment, a view through
a window, at the next, a picture within a picture
- is deprived of an unambiguous visibility. The
result is a moment of confusion, which the oper-
ation of the mise en abyme transfers to the entire
picture. What appears completely transparent at
first is blurred by this indistinguishability. The
oscillation between the picture and window
opening caused by the fortress inevitably in-
fluences the interpretation of the entire middle
panel because of the structural parallels between
the back of the throne and the altarpiece con-
struction. Obviously, what the viewer sees is not
presented in the same way one would look out of
a window. This creates a break in logic between
the coronation of Mary and the viewer's here and
now.

vanni Bellini consciously created an ambiguous
vacillation between window opening and picture
in the middle panel of the Pesaro Altarpiece. In
both cases, the model of representation that
Alberti suggested to help clarify the relationship
between the viewer and the picture is used to set
In this sense, the ambivalent appearance
back of the throne - oscillating between a
and a window - points to a common alle
Mary. As the verse in the gospel of
»Intravit Jesus in quoddam castellum
associated with the Virgin and with G

30 See Michael Baxandall, Giotto and bilithe eOrators. Hu- effettivi fra Alberti e Man
(forse anche)
manist Observers of Painting in Italy Joseph
and the Rykwert
Discov- and Anke Engel (eds), Leon
ery of Pictorial Composition, Oxford Alberti, Milan 1994, 336-357.
1971, 133-134;
31 See
Hans Belting, Giovanni Bellini Pieta. Leo Steinberg,
Ikone und Leon Battista Alberti
Bilderzdhlung in der venezianischen Mantegna,
Malerei, Frank- in: Rykwert/Engel (as note 30),
furt a.M. 1985, 36-48; Jack M. Greenstein,
esp. 334-335.Mantegna
32 Lk 10,
and Painting as Historical Narrative, 38.
Chicago 1992,
85; and Keith Christiansen, Rapporti presunti, proba-

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KUNSTGESCHICHTE 72. Band/2009 jy

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
carnation, Mary has often been represented as
impregnable fortress.33 Especially the Franciscan
order appreciated this allegorical analogy because
it served to propagate the immaculate conception
of Mary. Obviously Bellini's painting not merely
refers to this widespread allegory in a rather sim-
ple conventional manner. The ambiguous repre-
sentation of the fortress distinguishes the build-
ing from the viewer's space and, in this way,
accentuates its impregnability. As we have seen,
the ambiguity of the representation is not limited
to the appearance of the fortress at the back of
the throne, but also affects the entire pictorial
representation. Therefore, the viewer is prompt-
ed to conclude that both the fortress as an alleg-
ory of the Virgin and the Coronation of Mary
are present, but inaccessible to him.
Cima da Conegliano: » Blessed are those
who have not seen and yet have believed! «
Giovanni Bellini's Pesaro Altarpiece was not the
only work of quattrocento Venetian art to use
interchangeable window-picture backgrounds.
Two paintings by Giovanni Battista Cima da
Conegliano and Bartolomeo Montagna demon-
strate that certain problematic subjects required
reflection on the status of the image. In his de-
piction of Doubting Thomas (fig. 6), completed
around 1505 for the chapel of the Venetian Scuo-
la dei Muratori,*4 Cima da Conegliano adopted
the basic structure of Giovanni Bellini's classical
sacre conversazioni in order to modify it in a way
33 See Wilson (as note 13), 192-200; and Batschmann (as
note 13), 156. Evidence for the wide diffusion of the
comparison between Mary and the impregnable for-
tress is given by Anselm Salzer, Die Sinnbilder und
Beiworte Martens in der deutschen Literatur und la-
teinischen Hymnenposie des Mittelalters, Darmstadt
1967, 12 and 284-291. Salzer not only cites hymns
but also refers to theological literature. See, for exam-
ple, the chapter De assumptione Sanctae Mariae in
Honorius Augustodunensis, Speculum ecclesiae; Jac-
ques-Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completus . . .
series latina, 221 vols., Paris 1844-65, here vol. 172,
col. 991-994.
34 See Luigi Coletti, Cima da Conegliano, Venice 1959,
53 and 85; Luigi Menegazzi, Cima da Conegliano,
"° ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KUNSTGESCHICHTE J2. Band/2009
This content downloaded from
193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
that resembles Jacopo Bellini's drawing of the
sermon of John the Baptist. The architectural
arrangements depicted within Bellini's large
Venetian altarpiece paintings, including the Pala
di San Zaccaria completed about the same time,
almost exactly correspond to the forms of the
sculptural frame, suggesting a practically unin-
terrupted continuum between the painting, the
frame and the viewer's space.35 Cima da Cone-
gliano built on a large range of architectural
motifs which Giovanni Bellini had previously
developed in several variations,36 yet he changed
the foreground-background relationship in an
important way. Although one can only see a
small portion of the landscape in the background
- blocked by the three figures in the foreground
-, the architectural opening with its broad view
of the sky takes on an unusual degree of signifi-
cance. At first glance, it seems Jesus, Thomas and
St. Magnus are standing in a loggia with a view to
the outside. However, there are several details
here that lead the viewer to doubt that the struc-
ture is a normal loggia. Barely visible at the mar-
gins, there are narrow strips of marble next to
the pillars topped by the Corinthian capitals,
indicating a continuing wall that encloses the
room in the foreground. Therefore, this is appar-
ently not a traditional arcade with several open-
ings to the outside - a fact that makes the back-
ground view behind the three figures somewhat
doubtful. On closer examination, one can notice
that the flagstone floor in the foreground,
though extremely flush, is not closed off at the
Treviso 198 1, 44 and 11 8- 119; and Peter Humfrey,
Cima da Conegliano, Cambridge 1983, 41-42 and
151-152.
35 See, e.g., Peter Humfrey, The Altarpiece in Renais-
sance Venice, New Haven 1993, 146-147; and Shear-
man (as note 6), 97-98.
36 See Humfrey (as note 35). In his recent article on
Giorgione's Pala di Castelfranco, Salvatore Settis pre-
sented an impressive overview of the wealth of varia-
tion in architectural inventions in the Venetian sacre
conversazioni around 1500; see Salvatore Settis, Gior-
gione in Sicilia. Sulla data e la compositione della Pala
di Castelfranco, in: Giovanna Nepi Scire and Sandra
Rossi (eds.), Giorgione. »Le maraviglie dell'arte«,
Venice 2003, 33-63.
 6. Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano, The Incredulity of Thomas with St. Magnus,
oil on panel, c. 15 04 -5, 215X151 cm. Venice, Gallerie delPAccademia

ZeITSCHRIFT FUR KlJNSTGESCHICHTE J2. Band/2009 5 1

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

7. Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano,
The Incredulity of Thomas, oil on panel, 1 502-4,
294 x 200 cm. London, National Gallery
back by a recognizable threshold. Consequently,
there is no transition between the architecturally
designed room and the landscape; there are nei-
ther stones nor pebbles nor overhanging plants
which indicate that nature begins where the flag-
stone floor ends. Though clearly marked, the
missing architectural transition between the flag-
stones and the landscape should make us ques-
tion whether the opening behind the figures
truly reveals a view to the outside, or whether
the scene is actually taking place in front of a
landscape depiction. If we examine the architec-
tural supports more closely, we notice they do
not appear to be fully three-dimensional pillars,
but rather decorative pilasters, and the shaded
37 See Coletti (as note 34), 85; Menegazzi (as note 34),
117-118; Humfrey (as note 34), 110-111; Glenn W.
Most, Doubting Thomas, Cambridge (Mass.) 2005,
180-187.
38 See David Rosand, Painting in Cinquecento Venice. 39 »Beati, qui non viderunt et crediderunt!« (Jn 20,29).
62 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009
This content downloaded from
193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
intrados of the arch seems conspicuously narrow.
Furthermore, the strong light and shadows in the
foreground do not appear to correspond to the
landscape lighting. If we disregard the fact that
two arches extend over the pilasters toward us,
then the architecture is reminiscent of the stone
or wooden frames of the large Venetian pale.
This analogy also supports the theory that the
area behind the arch can be regarded as a picture.
Like Bellini's Pesaro Altarpiece, Cima da Cone-
gliano's depiction of doubting Thomas confronts
the viewer with the dilemma of deciding whether
the pictorial background is a view through an ar-
chitectural opening or a picture within a picture.
We can guess how well Cima da Conegliano
considered this solution if we take a look at the
London picture which depicts the same subject
and was most likely completed shortly before-
hand (fig. 7).37 For the first version, he drafted a
clearly constructed space, in which the scene
takes place according to the biblical story. In
contrast to his later Venetian version, his first
draft features all eleven apostles in what is clearly
a secluded, closed room - despite the conspic-
uous window openings. In the second version of
this subject, Cima da Conegliano moves away
from the biblical source with which he was well
acquainted. Not only are ten apostles missing,
but the addition of St. Magnus breaks the nar-
rative stringency of the depiction. More impor-
tantly, the viewer no longer sees the closed room
into which the frightened apostles retreated, but
rather an architecture that seems to open up to a
landscape. Comparing the two works, there is no
doubt that the use of the arch motif was a con-
scious deviation from the central element of tra-
ditional iconography. Cima da Conegliano pur-
posely chose this strategy to create the effect of
uncertainty in the beholder as described above.
As in Bellini's Pesaro Altarpiece, the reality
status of the entire picture begins to vacillate if
Titian, Veronese, Tintoretto, New Haven 1982, 35; for
fundamental considerations about the »second-order
observer «, see Niklas Luhmann, Die Kunst der
Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 1997, 92-164.
the viewer ascertains that the landscape in the ture comparison is critically examined on three
background can be a view through an architec- separate levels: By focusing on the exchange of
tural opening as well as a picture. The viewers looks and on Thomas touching Christ's wound,
will either regard the entire painting as a contin- Cima calls to mind the biblical story and the
uation of the real space, or as an opaque, painted blessing of those who have not seen, yet believe.
surface depending on whether they see the back- In addition to this direct reference to sight in the
ground as a view or picture. bible verse, the artist also reflects on the concept
Cima da Conegliano did not only attempt to of seeing at the pictorial level by including
make the receptive process more complex. He St. Magnus in the role of a second-order observer.
also reflected on various degrees and qualities of The uncertainty the viewer feels when looking at
perception in the interaction of the pictorial fig- the picture - caused by the vague status of the
ures. Thomas' gesture of placing his finger into landscape in the background - is the third and
Christ's wound is combined with the act of look- performative level of this critical examination of
ing, evident in their intensive and mutual gaze. sight. Cima counters the desire to use all of one's
The emphasized immediacy of this look is con- senses to verify one's faith with contemplative
trasted by St. Magnus' rather contemplative pose observation, represented by St. Magnus.
as he watches this personal moment. To a certain Cima's response to the challenge of critically
extent, he takes on the role of a second-order examining the act of viewing was taken up by
observer. As he watches Christ and Thomas Marco Basaiti a short time later (c. 1516).40 In his
looking at each other, his own gaze gains a re- altarpiece for the church of San Giobbe (fig. 8),
flexive capacity.38 Not only does St. Magnus not far from Giovanni Bellini's famous Pala di
witness the exchange of looks, but he also hears S. Giobbe, Basaiti places the four saints in the
Christ's words at the moment Thomas touches foreground (St. Louis of Toulouse, St. Francis,
his wound: »Blessed are those who have not seen St. Dominic and St. Mark) against a background
and yet have believed! «39 depicting Christ praying in the garden - an
Perhaps while working on his first London arrangement similar to that of Cima's painting.
version of Doubting Thomas, Cima da Coneglia- Again, the transition between the foreground
no noticed the problems which arise when por- architecture and the background landscape is
traying Christ's words through the medium of an depicted in such a way that it is impossible to
altarpiece. Because the portrayals of this scene ascertain whether one is looking through an
inevitably evoked this bible verse in the minds of architectural opening at the scene on the Mount
contemporary viewers, they called into question of Olives, or at a picture within a picture.41
the relationship between the viewer and the altar-
piece itself. The viewer was confronted with the
Bartolomeo Montagna:
question whether he or she would be able to
Touching Christ without bodily contact
believe without having seen. Cima da Coneglia-
no 's picture highlights this biblical criticism of Bartolomeo Montagna was confronted with a
falsely trusting one's sense of vision as the oscil- similar challenge - probably in the 1490s - when
lating background instills a feeling of uncertainty he was working on an altar painting that de-
in the viewer. The problematic suggestion of po- picted the resurrected Christ with Mary Magda-
tential accessibility inherent in the window-pic- lene (fig. 9).42 Even more so than the depiction of

40 See Bernard Bonario, Marco Basaiti. A Study of the
Venetian Painter and a Catalogue of his Works, Ann
Arbor 1974, 38-39 and 116- 119; and Rosand (as
note 38), 34-38.
41 The fact that Basaiti, like Cima, incorporates a critical
attitude toward seeing in his picture could have been
prompted by the biblical text. In the Gospel accord-
ing to St. Matthew, the failure of the three apostles,
who are overpowered by sleep, is explained by their
»heavy eyes« (»oculi gravati«, Mt 26,43).

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009 63

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8. Marco Basaiti, The Agony in the Garden, oil on panel, c. 151 6, 371 x 224 cm.
Venice, Gallerie delPAccademia

64 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 9- Bartolomeo Montagna, Noli me tangere, oil on panel, c. 1490- 1 500, 160 x 172 cm.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie

Doubting Thomas, this Noli me tangere scene, to touch.43 When Mary Magdalene encounters
named after Christ's words, examines the decep- Christ at the tomb, her eyes are deceived for she
tive nature of sight and the problematic desire doesn't immediately recognize him as Christ, but

42 See Lionello Puppi, Bartolomeo Montagna, Venice
1962, 50 and 98; Kai-Uwe Nielsen, Bartolomeo Mon-
tagna und die venezianische Malerei des spdten
Quattrocento, Miinchen 1995, 110-112. - The exact
date of the painting is unknown, but the suggestions
range from 1484 to the beginning of the sixteenth
century. Nielsen compares the integration of the bib-
lical scene into the painting to Bellini's Pesaro Altar-
piece as a »picture within a picture« (in), without
drawing any conclusions about the interpretation of
the picture.
43 See Mary Pardo, The Subject or Savoldo s Magdalene,
in: Art Bulletin 71/1, 1989, 67-91; Kriiger (as note 2),
104-106; Daniel Arasse, L'exces des images, in: Ma-
rianne Alphant, Guy Lafon and Daniel Arasse, U Ap-
parition a Marie- Madeleine. Noli me tangere, Paris
2001, 79-126; Jean-Luc Nancy, Noli me tangere.
Essay sur la levee du corps, Paris 2003; Barbara Baert,

Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009 5 5

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
rather thinks he is the gardener. It only takes one
word - his salutation »Mary!« - to reveal his true
identity as the resurrected Christ. Only after
Christ reveals himself in conversation, can Mary
Magdalene report back to the apostles »I have
seen the Lord!«44
The way Mary Magdalene has »seen the
Lord«, however, no longer corresponds to the
way she saw the man whom she first took to be
the gardener. In revealing himself, Christ also
forbids her to touch him: Noli me tangere. Yet,
in the Gospel according to Matthew, the two
women at the tomb report that they were not
hindered from touching Christ's feet,45 which
confronted exegetic and homiletic literature with
the problem of deciphering what Christ meant
by Noli me tangere. Both Augustine46 and Greg-
ory the Great47 attempted to explain Christ's
words by suggesting that Mary Magdalene
would have only been able to touch and feel
Christ in his human form. By distancing himself
from her, Christ emphasizes his aequalitas, his
equality in nature, to God the Father. In a ser-
mon, Augustine imagined how Christ himself
would have explained his words: »What did he
mean then, when he said: >Do not touch me, for
I have not yet ascended to the Father<? The way
you see me is the way you think I am - >I have
not yet ascended to the Fathers You see me as
a human being, and you regard me as a human
being. Of course, I am human, but do not place
your faith in that. Do not touch me in such a
way that you think I am merely human. >For
I have not yet ascended to the Fathers I shall
ascend to my Father, and you shall touch me,
that is, go forth, see me as equal to the Father,
then touch me and you will be redeemed. «48
Christ's aequalitas to God, upon which Au-
gustine bases his considerations, is no longer per-
ceptible through the usual senses of sight and
touch. It even exceeds the imago, the image, as
Augustine remarks in another context.49 There-
fore, it makes sense that Mary Magdalene's vita
in the Legenda aurea not only reports how she
was able to heal the blind, but also repeatedly
describes her as being an iconoclast of heathen
images.50 But, pictorial depictions of Mary Mag-
dalene's and Christ's encounter also ran the risk
of misjudging the divine nature of Christ, as
Augustine believed Maria Magdalene had. The
image also had to distance itself from the viewer.
It required an inherent distinction that would
force the viewer to no longer rely on the sense of
sight. An encounter with the resurrected Christ
had to be as untouchable for the viewer as Christ
was for Mary Magdalene.
With his altarpiece for the church of San Lo-
renzo in Vicenza, Bartolomeo Montagna at-
tempted to portray the theological gist of the
scene by involving the viewer in a process of
reception in which seeing is not necessarily be-
lieving. Although the picture is clearly structured
in two layers - the foreground with John the
Baptist and St. Jerome, and the landscape back-

Touching with the Gaze. A Visual Analysis of the Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, vol. 141, ed.
Noli me tangere, in: Barbara Baert et al. (eds.), Noli Raymond Etaix, Turnhout 1999, 204-216.
me tangere. Mary Magdalene: One Person, Many 48 Augustinus, Sermo CCXLIV: In diebus Paschalibus,
Images, Leuven 2006, 43-52; Ulrike Tarnow, Noli me XV; Migne (as note 33), vol. 38, col. 11 50.
tangere: Zur Problematik eines visuellen Topos und 49 Augustinus, De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tri-
seiner Transformation im Cinquecento, in: Thomas bus, LXXIV; Aurelius Augustinus, De diversis quaes-
Frank, Ursula Kocher and Ulrike Tarnow (eds.), tionibus octoginta tribus. De octo Dulcitii quaestio-
Topik und Tradition. Prozesse der Neuordnung von nibus. Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, vol. 44A,
Wissensuberlieferungen des 13. bis iy. Jahrhunderts, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, Turnhout 1975, 213-214. -
Gottingen 2007, 209-225. Only Christ as the Father's image and his equal
44 »Vidi Dominum!« (Jn 20,18). reconciles aequalitas and imago; see Robert A. Mar-
45 See Mt 28,9. kus, »Imago« and »similitudo« in Augustine, in: Re-
46 See Augustinus, Sermo CCXLIV: In diebus Pascha- vue des etudes augustiniennes 10, 1964, 125-143.
libus, XV; Migne (as note 33), vol. 38, col. 1147-1151. 50 Johann G. Theodor Graesse (ed.), Jacobi a Voragine
47 See Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae in Evangelia, lib. II, Legenda aurea, Breslau 3i890, 407-417.
XXV; Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae in Evangelia. 5 1 Daniel Arasse made a similar observation in his analy-

66 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ground depicting the biblical event - the rela-
tionship between these layers is dubious at closer
examination. Because the landscape seems to lie
directly behind the architectural supports in the
foreground, viewers get the initial impression
that they are looking through openings. But like
in the paintings of Giovanni Bellini, Cima da
Conegliano and Marco Basaiti, the pictorial fore-
ground and background belong to completely
different levels of reality. There are no shadows
in the landscape from the pillars or pilasters in
the foreground, and there is not a plant, nor
pebble that penetrates the narrow proscenium.
The two pilasters that frame the scene with
Christ and Mary Magdalene are particularly odd.
One has to wonder why there are no massive pil-
lars or columns supporting the protruding con-
soles and arches. In contrast to three-dimension-
al pillars, pilasters are usually placed against a
supporting wall which provides stability. Once
the viewers have noticed these pilasters, they
suddenly realize they may no longer be looking
at the biblical scene through an architectural
opening; the background now appears as a flat,
painted surface - a picture within a picture. The
reality status of the central image in Bartolomeo
Montagna's altarpiece also exhibits a disturbing
oscillation, as the continuity of the landscape
behind the pilasters gives the beholder the feeling
of looking through openings.
By considering whether it would be possible
to pass through the depicted architecture to the
background or whether the spaces between the
pilasters and columns are merely flat, painted
surfaces, the viewer is encouraged to reflect on
the relationship between seeing and touching.
For the viewer, the scene in which Mary Mag-
dalene encounters Christ appears close enough
to touch, but at the same moment, the scene is
removed, because it is revealed as potentially
illusory. Once again, proximity and withdrawal,
sis of sixteenth-century depictions of the scene Noli
me tangere; see Arasse (as note 43), 105.
52 Nielsen (as note 42), in, regards the kneeling Mary
Magdalene at Christ's feet as a parallel to the biblical
scene in which she washes the feet of Christ with her
Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band / 2009 67
This content downloaded from
193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
presence and absence appear inextricably inter-
woven. Bartolomeo Montagna also seems to have
applied the window-picture concept to create a
unique form of ambiguity.
In Augustine's opinion, when Christ asked
Mary Magdalene not to touch him, it was not
meant to be a rude repudiation, but rather an
invitation to touch him in a different way - in a
more figurative sense, not limited to his physical
human form. Bartolomeo Montagna's picture
superbly demonstrates this paradoxical form of
touching without bodily contact. With Christ
depicted further away than Mary Magdalene in
the pictorial space and with a slightly evasive
posture, Montagna ensured that his depiction did
not suggest a violation of Christ's wish. Though
they come close to touching each other with
their hands, there is still an adequate distance
separating them. If the viewer regards the scene,
however, as a picture within a picture, she or he
will notice that both figures are actually touching
at two significant points. At the two-dimensional
level, Christ's right hand comes in contact with
Mary Magdalene's head, while her hand touches
the foot of the resurrected Christ. Within the
illusionistically depicted pictorial space, and
thus, at the representational level of the biblical
story, Christ does not permit Mary Magdalene
any physical contact. Yet, Montagna makes this
contact possible if the viewers decide they are
no longer looking through a window, but at an
opaque surface.51 By interweaving spatial illusion
and pictorial surface, the window-picture and the
opaque painting, Bartolomeo Montagna is able
to portray that fragile simultaneity of closeness
and withdrawal that characterizes the encounter
between Mary Magdalene and Christ.52
Giovanni Bellini, Giovanni Battista Cima da
Conegliano, Marco Basaiti and Bartolomeo
Montagna put a fundamentally different twist
onto the window-picture comparison as it was
tears, after which she dries them with her hair and
anoints them with oil. However, there is no anointing
jar visible in the picture, nor any sign of Mary Mag-
dalene crying.
conceived by Alberti. It is possible that the Vene-
tian artists were motivated to subversion by
Jacopo Bellini's modifications to Alberti's con-
cept in some of his drawings. Instead of clarify-
ing the reality status of the images within, the
artists preferred to use the analogy of the win-
dow and picture to create confusion and unsolv-
able ambiguity. The forms of image layering and
the functions of the framing constellations used
by the Venetians did not clearly differentiate the
levels of reality (or more precisely, »levels of
unreality*),53 which one can often identify in the
wall murals of the quattrocento.
The basic characteristic of the pictorial strate-
gies used in the artworks analyzed above is not
the differentiation of such levels of representa-
tion, but rather their oscillation. Centrally locat-
ed within the pictures, we encounter an uncon-
trollable fluctuation between interpretations - at
one moment, a view out of an opening and
simultaneously, a picture within a picture -
which indicates the evocation of nearness and
accessibility, on one hand, and its revocation, gestion
on
the other. What the viewers learn from this ex-drawal and absence in an extremely unique way.
They are pictures »enpartance«.55
perience is that the images they see are not whol-
ly accessible and that they cannot completely
grasp the picture simply by looking at it. For the
picture itself, this strategy implies that the ulti-
mate goal is not to achieve transparent visibility,
but to keep something in >reserve<. If what the
viewer initially thinks is an opening with a view
turns out to be a two-dimensional picture, the
revocation of transparency would make the
viewer revert to the basic conditions of pictorial
representation.54 The fact that the picture dis-
closes the conditions of possibility through
which it is depicted (its two-dimensionality, pe-
ripheral limitations, bond with materials, etc.)
does not necessarily lessen its suggestive force.
Rather, the viewer is able to experience first-hand
how a picture can evoke nearness and presence
despite its fundamental limitations. This effect is
all the more remarkable in view of the fact that
the pictorial depiction is accompanied by an
imminent vagueness or withdrawal. >Reframing<
the concept of the window-picture has resulted
in the creation of images which combine the sug-
of presence and the experience of with-

53 See Sven Sandstrom, Levels of Unreality. Studies in Boehm, Der Topos des Anfangs. Geometrie und Rhe-
the Structure and Construction in Italian Mural torik in der Malerei der Renaissance, in: Ulrich Pfiste-
Painting during the Renaissance -, Uppsala 1963; andrer and Max Seidel (eds.), Visuelle Topoi. Erfindung
Felix Thiirlemann, Fictionality in Mantegna's Sanund tradiertes Wissen in den Kunsten der italienischen
Zeno Altarpiece. Structures of Mimesis and the His-Renaissance, Miinchen/Berlin 2003, 48-59, esp. 55-56.
55 Nancy (as note 43), esp. 83-84; see also Jean-Luc
tory of Painting, in: New Literary History 20/3, 1989,
747-761. Nancy, Au fond des images, Paris 2003, 1 1 -33 (L'i-
54 See Marin 1997 (as note 5), 66-6j; and Gottfried mage - le distinct).

Photo credits: 1, 2 Servizio Musei del Commune di Pesaro. - 3, 4 © Reunion des Musees Nationaux (RMN),
Paris, Gerard Blot. - 5, 6 Bildarchiv Foto Marburg. - 7 © The National Gallery, London. - 8 Soprintendenza
Speciale per il Polo Museale Veneziano. - 9 bpk / Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Foto: Jorg
P. Anders

00 Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 72. Band/ 2009

This content downloaded from

193.140.147.246 on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:55:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms