Wasserman, Jack. Leonardo Da Vinci. New York: Harry N. Abrams Pub., 1984.
This book is a monograph of the works of Leonardo Da Vinci accompanied by descriptive texts. Wasserman begins by telling how Leonardo began his artistic career in the studio of Verrocchio, an honorable sculptor of the time. An interesting point he brings up is that Leonardo did not have formal training in the craft of goldsmithing like many artists of his period. This, he says may have caused Leonardo's "aloofness" to the crafts of fresco or tempera, which were dignified by tradition. Leonardo had no training in either of these crafts while apprenticed to Verrocchio's workshop. Leonardo loved the media of oil painting which he used to its fullest potential. Like the Flemish artist Jan Van Eyke, he painted in thin transparent layers to give his works a translucent luminosity similar to stained glass.
Leonardo's first known painting is a revision he executed on the panel begun by Verrocchio entitled "The Baptism of Christ." Apparently, this panel had sat in the corner of Verrocchio's workshop untouched for over a year before Leonardo took it upon himself to rework the panel. Originally painted in ttempera Leonardo executed his revisions in oils, covering most of the sky and adding an angel to the left of the composition. Upon seeing the painting of Leonardo, the author suggests, Verrocchio never painted again and put Leonardo in charge of all painting that left the workshop. This is taken from an account chronicled by Giorgio Vasari, an artist and a biographer from the same period. The validity of this is uncertain, but it does show the effects of Leonardo's art on others, especially other artists.
Michelangelo who was twenty-three years younger than Leonardo, was his arch rival. The artists were both polar opposites to each other, in both their views of art and their character. Leonardo believed painting to be the noblest of all the art forms, while on the other hand, Michelangelo believed sculpture to be more noble than painting. Leonardo was a thin, well-mannered, relaxed man, whereas Michelangelo was stocky, boorish, and short tempered.
Leonardo, like Michelangelo and other artists of the period, was a subject of his time. He had ambitions larger than he could possibly fulfill. What I find also to be Leonardo's downfall, besides his blind ambition, is his inability to stay focused. His mind was amused by everything. Everything from the largest mountainside down to the smallest insect captured his attention. Pope Leo X said of Leonardo, 'Alas, this man will do nothing; he starts by thinking of the end of the work before its beginning' (7). Had he focused most of his attention to his art alone, there is no telling how many works he could have produced and how those works would have looked. Leonardo's art was greatly affected by his study of science and nature. Without this parallel study of science, his artwork may have had the same appearance as other artworks produced during this period. One difference in his work from other artists of the period was his ability to show the effects of atmosphere on the subject. He called this effect in painting "sfumato" meaning "smokelike" or "haze." This effect is a direct influence from his study of science. He did not, however, scientifically separate painting down into its component parts such as Seurat did in the late nineteenth century. Leonardo thought science to be the sister of painting and used it as an aid in representing reality as he saw it.
I enjoyed this book and found Leonardo Da Vinci's work (especially his drawings) to have a foreshadowing of the Baroque period. His life, like Michelangelo's, borders two different periods in art history. The first being the Renaissance, with its formal, serene approach to the figure, and the Baroque, with its unbalanced, agitated portrayal of the figure. Both of their works signify this change in attitude toward the human figure.
Jack Wasserman is the Professor of Art History at Temple University in Philadelphia.