CARAVAGGIO’S REALISM

The essence of Caravaggio’s realism is to be found in the lifelike quality of projected images, whether those seen 1) in a camera obscura or 2) produced by reflection from a parabolic mirror.  Before he made use of this source of  wonder, known since antiquity as a burning mirror, he must have employed a camera obscura, the Ambrosiana Basket of Fruit being a prime example: the scale of the picture, the accuracy of detail, the complexity of depth with no formal perspective framework, the

direction of the brushwork, the implication of form by means of the shape of its background, with some suggestion that it may have been painted upside down, all suggest that he managed to capture the image in this way.  All the unfamiliar detail and challenging perspective are rendered from its two dimensional suspended likeness.  Painting colours in a dark camera obscura presents particular difficulties, but the image is stronger and more colourful than in a reflected one as produced by a parabolic mirror. It would seem likely, in this first phase, that  he would at first mark large areas of colour, light and shade, producing  different ground areas under the separate figures (as in the Fort Worth Cardsharps) and then work towards greater detail on the basis of direct observation of the image itself. More detailed colour, including fleshtones,  would be added on the basis of recollection, but the boverall image would be a direct translation of a two dimensional image projected through the lens. The lighter tonality of the early works points to a different process of capturing the image from that of the darker chiaroscuro of later works. Bold strokes capture the main volumes, the detail follows from close observation of the image itself. The design itself was clear from the broad initial brushstrokes. All the techniques Caravaggio invented were completely unprecedented, and were dependent on an intuitive understanding of a novel way of assimilating the previously hypothetical image that existed in mid air, and visible only in small tranches of a field of view offered by untested optical experimentation.

The plein-air realism of the early works, up to the Cardsharps, the work that caught Del Monte’s notice, points to Caravaggio having employed this relatively straightforward optical technique. The close observation that is possible with a camera obscura, even with the inconvenience of the inverted image, meant that in this phase the artist was preoccupied with capturing still life more than human features or narrative, and when single figures come into the subject matter they are in fact treated almost as if they were a still life. The clear cut image and bright colours that resulted from the introduction of a biconvex lens G. Cardano, c. 1550), in the place of a pinhole, made for a dramatic improvement in the quality of the camera obscura, and this was the basis of he theatrical demonstrations GB Della Porta was able to put on during the intervals of his theatrical productions. This device, already documented from the mid-sixteenth century, made a tremendous impression on those who experienced its effect: recording the resulting “picture” involved close transcription of those parts of the limited field of view that were in focus. For Caravaggio this meant that he could prepare a design with a broad areas of colour corresponding with single figures, and make brush strokes work to give shape and depth to his forms, rather than using any other device like a conventional perspective with a vanishing point, assembling a complete picture from several observations.

The Judith and Holofernes now in the Galleria Nazionale, Rome (1599) marks a turning point in Caravaggio’s working practice. Not only is the setting now a darkened room, but the figures are outlined by prominent incisions, which mark the limbs and heads of the protagonists. This is effectively the beginning of a new practice, which resulted from the use of shallow concave mirror to project each separate part of the composition, rather than relying on a bright image from a camera obscura. Because the image was only illuminated partially, by the oblique light from a single overhead source, it was more important to mark the points of reference on the canvas with lines that would catch the light as it reached the canvas, obliquely. It was the result of Caravaggio’s move from the room that he had at Palazzo Petrignani, in the vicinity of the Trinità dei Pellegrini, to the cellars of Palazzo Firenze, where the lighting was from skylights with a single shaft of sunlight in an otherwise darkened space. This was the famous ‘lume unito’ or shaft of light that his biographer Mancini spoke of, which enabled the artist to make a consistent interpretation of form from the impact of light from a single, parallel beam, whose source is seen in the lozenge of light in the mirror of the Detroit Martha reproving Mary for her Vanity. At the same time, this move coincided with a decline in the role of colour in Caravaggio’s work, for he was more concerned with the relationship of figures to each other, and narrative, to give as much attention to colours as he did in the early Roman years.

While the incisions can superficially seem sometimes to relate to the whole composition, in practice they belong only to each figure, and indeed even just a part of a pose: the position of the head, the placing of the shoulder, the pose of the individual hand. In some cases the physical outline of a body part is the deciding factor, subsequently to be covered by the costume or hair, almost as if the costume was painted in without the model being always present.  These profiles were of great importance because they gave a foundation for the impression of form that could be built on this foundation. In other respects the painter had no regard for what was not visible: the optical observation of structure (for instance of chairs or tables) led to surprising illogicalities.   The incised lines can be seen to belong to different stages in the work of painting the picture: some in the wet ground, some in areas when the stylus meets greater resistance, indicating it was dry, others in parts where the other elements had already been painted, and progressively some of these incisions are covered over with the fresh brushstrokes of a new part of the design.

The encounter with Cardinal Del Monte in the late 1590s is therefore a crucial moment, when a painter who had discovered a way of making a “mosaic” of reality from a camera obscura setup, met with a patron who had a similar enthusiasm for the true semblance of reality, and had the possibility of the most sophisticated device then capable of producing a reflected image, known from classical antiquity but now to be used in a setting that was radically different, and offered an “artificial” studio away from prying eyes that were only too curious to know how this image was achieved. This was the cellar in Palazzo Firenze that Bellori reported that Caravaggio was unwilling to leave to come out into the light of day.

This will be discussed in much greater detail in Clovis Whitfield’s forthcoming book due to be published in 2009, and a much more detailed film. (This present video was made in just an afternoon with small digital camera just to give the outline of an idea.)