Historiography of Boy Bitten by a Lizard (Caravaggio)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (February 2008)

This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (February 2008)

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (October 2007)

There are many art historical movements and developments which have affected the scholarship done on Boy Bitten by a Lizard. Since there are two different examples of this painting, there have been many connoisseurs and formalists which are attracted to this work, each trying to argue which painting they find to be authentic. Connoisseurship begins in the early 20th century with Borenius, who announces in the Apollo magazine that he has discovered a lost Caravaggio painting (the London example of Boy Bitten by a Lizard). After Roberto Longhi purchases his example of this painting from a private collection, the debate between connoisseurs begins (beginning with Venturi and Longhi). Many articles are published in the privileged magazine for connoisseurs, The Burlington Magazine, on this topic. At this point in time, connoisseurship is mainly focused on stylistic analysis, with each connoisseur arguing that they have a mastery and understanding of Caravaggio’s true style. Writers such as Voss, Arslan, Longhi, Mahon, Hinks, and Salerno all express their own opinions regarding the authenticity of each example.

There is also an underlying debate between English-speaking scholars (American and English) and Italians on this issue: each nationality seems to find that they understand Caravaggio and Boy Bitten by a Lizard best. One can see this international criticism in Mahon’s scathing review of Venturi’s book. This debate particularly becomes apparent in Luigi Salerno’s article from 1970, even though he is actually condemning French scholars (instead of English scholars) for their mistranslation of Italian. However, the nationalistic mentality and assumed superiority of scholarship is overtly apparent in this article. It should be noted, however, that there are some international connections between connoisseurs during this time period, particularly shown in the correspondence between Mahon and Salerno.

Connoisseurship begins to take a shift in the 1980s, when the use of x-radiography becomes popular in art analysis. With this shift, connoisseurs such as Mina Gregori, John Spike, and Denis Mahon begin to discuss more of the “hidden” aspects of this painting in order to attribute the correct example to Caravaggio. Starting at this point, there is a shift towards interest in pentimenti, preliminary incisions made in the primer of paint, and in the color of the ground. The debate essentially has ended with Denis Mahon asserting in 1992 that both examples are original, albeit that they were painted in different times in Caravaggio’s life. However, Mahon even leaves his argument open-ended, saying that more scholarship and examinations of the paintings are necessary.

Formal analysis is also an important approach that is taken in Boy Bitten by a Lizard scholarship. Much of the interest in formalism stems from the school of Walter Friedlaender, who was a student of Wölfflin. Gilbert is one of Friedlaender’s students who uses the comparative method in his discussion of Boy Bitten by a Lizard, particularly in the way that he compares fair youths to the sitter in the painting. Friedlaender also was very interested in Northern Renaissance art, which also accounts for many of his students making connections with Northern paintings and iconography. In regard to Boy Bitten by a Lizard, Costello’s 1981 article proves to have the strongest connections to Friedlaender’s Northern influence. Posner also exhibits some interest in Netherlandish painting through his examination of symbolism and still-life painting. It is possible that Posner was also influenced by Panofsky, another student of Friedlaender, who wrote extensively on Netherlandish painting and iconography. Due to the popular connections between Northern painting and Boy Bitten by a Lizard, other scholars of Northern painting (who were not trained by Friedlaender) also became interested in this topic, such as Slatkes, Hibbard, and Gash.

In regard to formalism and the comparative method, other scholars that employed this approach are Salerno, Spear, Bauer, Fried, and Moffit. The evidence of these writings can all be tied back to Friedlaender’s influence on Caravaggio scholarship, although these individuals were not directly trained by Friedlaender. For example, although Bauer was not Friedlaender’s student, she attended the Institute of Fine Arts in New York, which was the same school where Friedlaender, Posner, and Costello taught. One can see through Bauer’s writing that the Friedlaender’s formalism was still being passed along in the 1980s and 90s to students at the Institute of Fine Arts.

Beginning in the 1970s, more publications which discuss Boy Bitten by a Lizard began to come from scholars who were associated with The Art Bulletin magazine. The Art Bulletin is a publication dedicated to art historical scholarship and discussion. Spear, Posner, and Gilbert were three scholars who were either editors or editors-in-chief for The Art Bulletin. This interest in true scholarship is different from previous periodical publications, for the Apollo focuses more on newly discussed, “hot topic” works of art, and The Burlington Magazine is for art dealers and connoisseurs. Therefore, it is about this same time period when more scholarly, theoretical research on Boy Bitten by a Lizard begins to come forward in the art historical world.

In 1971, Donald Posner wrote a particularly seminal article which influenced almost all of the scholarship which followed. Through a psychoanalytic approach, Posner determined that “homo-eroticism” found in Caravaggio’s early works, and examined writings from Caravaggio’s life to determine that the artist was homosexual. After this article was written, scholars could generally not write about Caravaggio without mentioning Posner’s influential article. Although some scholars did refute Posner’s thesis, such as Slatkes and Gilbert, the idea of homo-eroticism in Caravaggio’s paintings now remains largely undisputed. At this point, it should be noted that both Posner and Gilbert were students of Friedlaender. Therefore, we see that Posner’s psychoanalytic twist to his article shows as slight departure from his formalist training, which is refuted by Gilbert, who remains more traditional and true to his teacher’s style. However, Gilbert is one of the few exceptions of scholars who completely rejected Posner and his ideas. Writers such as Freedman, Hibbard, Fried, Bersani, Dutoit, and Moffit all have examined Boy Bitten by a Lizard from a homo-erotic, psychoanalytic stance, each at varying degrees. Feminist writer Garrard also mentions the homo-eroticism of Boy Bitten by a Lizard in her 1994 article on Sophonisba Anguissola. At about the early 1990s, homo-eroticism and sexuality had truly become part of the standard discourse on Caravaggio.

In addition to psychoanalysis, other postmodern approaches have been taken with Boy Bitten by a Lizard. Both Carrier and Fried discuss Boy Bitten by a Lizard from this postmodern viewpoint, but they are both writing in the 1990s, when postmodernists were becoming critical of postmodernism. This view is particularly prevalent in Carrier’s article, as he deconstructs art historical theory and argues the validity of connoisseurship in art historical practice. Fried’s article also displays a disillusion of postmodernism; although he is mainly focused painting’s production and how the painting can be interpreted by the viewer, he also reverts back to building some historical context by examining Caravaggio’s original intent for painting Boy Bitten by a Lizard.

Recently, the discussion of Boy Bitten by a Lizard has spread to scholars of other disciplines, such as Bersani and Dutoit. Through their expertise in literature and film, these two men have found another way of viewing Caravaggio’s works and its enigmatic quality. It can be assumed that this interdisciplinary trend will continue in future scholarship. However, with writers such as Carrier also calling for scholars to once again include traditional approaches in their postmodern writings, scholarship on Boy Bitten by a Lizard could also maintain a more traditional trend in the years to come.

[edit] References

Arslan, Edoardo. “Appunto su Caravaggio,” Aut Aut 5, (1951): 414-51.

Baglione, Giovanni. Le Vite de’Pittori, Scultori, et Architetti. Rome: 1642. Translated by Howard Hibbard in, Lives of Caravaggio, London: Pallas Athene, 2005.

Bauer, Linda and Steve Colton. “Tracing in Some Works by Caravaggio,” The Burlington Magazine 142, no. 1168 (July 2000): 434-436.

Bersani, Leo and Ulysse Dutoit. Caravaggio’s Secrets, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1998.

Carrier, David, “In Praise of Connoisseurship,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61, no. 2 (May, 2003): 159-169.

Christiansen, Keith and Denis Mahon, “Caravaggio’s Second Versions,” The Burlington Magazine 134, no. 1073 (August 1992): 502-4.

Costello, Jane. “Caravaggio, Lizard, and Fruit.” In Art the Ape of Nature, eds. Moshe Barasch, Lucy Freeman Sandler, and Patricia Egan, 375-85. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1981.

Fried, Michael. “Thoughts on Caravaggio,” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 1 (Autumn, 1997): 13-6.

Friedlaender, Walter. Caravaggio Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Garrard, Mary D. “Here's Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist,” Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 3 (Autumn, 1994): 556-622.

Gilbert, Creighton E. Caravaggio and His Two Cardinals, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.

Gregori, Mina. “Boy Bitten By a Lizard.” In The Age of Caravaggio, ed. John P. O’Neill, 236-41. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985.

Hibbard, Howard. Caravaggio. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.

Longhi, Roberto. Il Caravaggio, Milan: Aldo Martello, 1952.

Mahon, Denis. “Contrasts in Art Historical Method: Two Recent Approaches to Caravaggio,” The Burlington Magazine 95, no. 603 (1953): 212-20.

Moffit, John F. Caravaggio in Context: Learned Naturalism and Renaissance Humanism. London: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2004.

Posner, Donald. “Caravaggio’s Homo-erotic Early Works,” Art Quarterly 34 (1971): 301-324.

Posner, David. “Lizards and Lizard Lore, with Special Reference to Caravaggio’s Leapin’ Lizard.” In Art the Ape of Nature, eds. Moshe Barasch, Lucy Freeman Sandler, and Patricia Egan, 387-91. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1981.

Salerno, Luigi. “Caravaggio e i Caravaggeschi,” Storia dell’arte 7-8 (1970): 234-48.

Slatkes, Leonardo J. “Caravaggio’s Boy Bitten by a Lizard,” Print Review 5 (1975): 149-153.

Spear, Richard E. “A Note on Caravaggio’s Boy with a Vase of Roses,” The Burlington Magazine 113, no. 821 (1971): 470-1, 473.

Spike, John T. Review of “Come Nascono i Capolavori,” [exhibition of works by Caravaggio, held at Palazzo Pitti in Florence and Fondazione Memmo in Rome]. Burlington Magazine 134, no. 1069 (April 1992): 275-77.

Venturi, Lionello. Il Caravaggio. Novara: Instituto Geografico de Agostini, 1951.

Voss, Hermann. “An Unknown Early Work by Caravaggio,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 51, no. 295 (October 1927): 180-183, 187.