Save
Save chapter to my Bookmarks
Cite
Cite this chapter
Print this chapter
Share
Share a link to this chapter
Free
Description: The Renaissance Print: 1470–1550
The history of the print in western Europe is a story that has been told many times. Although there are innumerable points of detail which have not been, and may never be, satisfactorily resolved, it is not our intent to offer a new account of its origins. Rather, we set forth and conclude our study in medias res, concentrating mainly on the period between about 1470 and 1550, the critical stage in the maturation of early printmaking as an art form. Our approach is broadly based, opening …
PublisherYale University Press
https://doi.org/10.37862/aaeportal.00154.013
View chapters with similar subject tags
Preface

The history of the print in western Europe is a story that has been told many times. Although there are innumerable points of detail which have not been, and may never be, satisfactorily resolved, it is not our intent to offer a new account of its origins. Rather, we set forth and conclude our study in medias res, concentrating mainly on the period between about 1470 and 1550, the critical stage in the maturation of early printmaking as an art form. Our approach is broadly based, opening with the material and institutional circumstances surrounding print production, and then proceeding to examine workshop practices including technical and aesthetic experimentation undertaken by particular masters. Our eventual aim is to give a better approximation of the ways Renaissance prints of various sorts were realized, distributed, acquired, and eventually handled by their public. In order to do so, we have valued certain aspects of this development that are given much less attention in the standard histories of Renaissance art. Since this study makes no pretense to offering a survey of its subject, we have been highly selective in our choice of topics, artists, and regions, sometimes giving little attention to important matters that have been closely studied elsewhere. We aspire to cast a broad light on the realities that rendered the new medium such a remarkable success within so few generations after its start.
Our purpose here is to examine the history of the print in its first maturity, when printmaking came to be adopted by well-recognized masters, and so to offer a fuller context for understanding the Renaissance print as an artistic achievement. We shall concern ourselves on the one hand with a range of practical questions about production — what were the materials used, where and how were they acquired? In short, how did a Renaissance printmaker’s workshop operate? Then we shall examine the nature of these prints in relation to their probable markets. What evidence is there that individual prints were beginning to be valued as works of art rather than as inexpensive substitutes for them, or as objects of interest primarily for devotional or practical ends? What is the relationship between prints made to be collected and those of a more ephemeral nature intended for a wider audience? How should we understand the perception of the value of prints during our period — the material worth and also the relative value of woodcuts to engravings, or engravings to etchings? How did prints evolve in relation to the pictorial arts of the Renaissance generally? In particular, how did prints develop alongside the theory and practice of painting, and how and when did the phenomenon of the reproductive print actually arise? What were the particular developments in print production and print reception that opened the way for the appearance of the sixteenth-century publishing houses? To what extent did the print revolutionize the transfer of knowledge in the early modern world?
We approach this complex of questions along two principal avenues — the gathering of documentary evidence of all kinds directly and indirectly pertinent to print production, distribution, and reception; and a careful examination of particular prints and specific impressions by certain masters in order to discover the clues they themselves yield about all of these matters. Our objective on both counts is not to provide a comprehensive picture of the period, but to offer a context for re-evaluating the achievements of what is historically the most influential era in the history of European printmaking. Because the archival documentation relevant to printmaking is widely scattered and very scarce — relative, for example, to the history of book printing — we have had to cast a wide geographical net in gathering our material. Though we have committed substantial time to archival research for this study, the majority of the sources marshaled here have been previously published by others. We have concentrated our efforts mainly on the accumulation and assessment of this mine of disparate material never before assembled and analyzed.
Given the desire to provide a kind of “ground level” account of the Renaissance print rather than a rehearsal of artists’ biographies and their masterpieces, we have often given emphasis to less well known figures and less ordinary kinds of prints. Thus, in an attempt to characterize the spectrum of graphic production we grant more space to Israhel van Meckenem than to Martin Schongauer. The detailed evolution of Marcantonio Raimondi’s Roman prints takes precedence over Parmigianino’s renowned contribution to the history of etching, and the intricacies of the invention of chiaroscuro woodcut in the north outweighs the attention given to the activity of the young Dürer. We concentrate on what seem to be exemplary developments in the major centers of print production — principally the activities of printmakers in Antwerp, Augsburg, Florence, Nuremberg, and Venice. Though the study is laden with references to the history of the book and to book illustration, in general we have not entered directly into this crucial aspect of early printmaking as a problem in itself on the grounds that it properly merits separate treatment. Moreover, the individual, single-leaf print has a technical evolution and an aesthetic history with a place of its own in the annals of evaluating, collecting, and displaying objects.
An important objective of this study is to try to lay out a patch of common ground between two different, if not discrete, perspectives on the history of prints. On the one side, there is the direct kind of experience of prints most fully achieved by the curators of major collections, and also by dealers and private collectors, a point of view only partly represented in catalogues and in censuses of particular and collected works. In the normal course of their profession, these scholars encounter an extraordinary range of quality and individual variation that much more closely approximates the reality of Renaissance print production with all of its accidents, its wonderful inanities, and its endless varieties than anything we might glean from the standard histories of the subject.
On the other side, there are those historians whose first concern has been to synthesize, to discover over-arching patterns, to elucidate social context, or to trace the principal outlines of a period, an iconographic theme, or an artisanal specialty. Alongside art historians whose primary purpose has been to chart the development of styles and iconography, and for whom prints have often been of secondary concern, in recent years we have witnessed a resurgence of social history. There, for obvious reasons, the phenomenon of the print has taken on a new and quite special significance. And yet for this latest generation of historians it is very often the practical and material knowledge of printmaking, precisely the sort that requires an expertise typically commanded by curatorial scholars, that has proven most important and most difficult to acquire. Although the traditional divide between these two perspectives is a logical consequence of the setting within which scholars work and the particular responsibilities required of them, it is well to remember that curators of the stature of Campbell Dodgson, A. M. Hind, and William Ivins, Jr., rank among the most informed and expansive cultural historians of our century.
In short, we have found the need expressed among all parties for a history which is built more firmly upon the practical aspects of printmaking — not just technical matters, but institutional and commercial ones as well where these help to explain the extraordinary artistic achievements of the Renaissance print. To meet this end, we have drawn upon a great variety of sources, often very difficult of access, and constructed a history of the print with very different lineaments than anything presently to be found in the literature on this vast subject. It is a history that throws previous assumptions into doubt as often as it attempts to construct new understandings. It is a history that is intentionally fragmentary, dictated by concentrations of evidence in very uneven terrain. Though at many points our discussion becomes quite technical and detailed, we hope not to have lost the forest for the trees. It is our intention to provide a resource of value to a wide audience — generalists in Renaissance studies, historians of technology, art historians and specialists in the history of the print, artists, curators, and collectors alike. In undertaking such an ambitious task, it should be clear that we regard our efforts as a foundation, and in this sense as preliminary. We have attempted to map the terrain in a history that better describes the interplay of technique, style, and meaning in the context of a market and an audience, and thereby to provide a more integrated view of the Renaissance print as a social and artistic enterprise.
This book is the consequence of a collaboration begun by two colleagues and completed by two friends. It represents well over a decade of joint research and the free exchange of ideas, a pleasurable effort that has at last been drawn together in a common argument. Those already familiar with the field of Renaissance print studies will recognize that the historiography of this general subject varies greatly north and south of the Alps. The centrality of print production has long been acknowledged in the scholarship on German and Netherlandish art, whereas, for a complex of reasons, research on Italian printmaking has only recently gained a mature and prominent place in Renaissance art history. Moreover, given the important distinctions in the nature of artistic self-consciousness and the way this affected artistic developments in Italy and in northern Europe, different sorts of questions need to be posed and oftentimes different strategies found to answer them. Because of these disparities, and because of the exceptional demands presented by a project of this scope, we decided early on that our subject was best approached by apportioning it along geographical lines. As a result David Landau wrote the entirety of Chapter IV, and the sections on Italy in Chapters III, VI, and VII. Peter Parshall wrote the brief introductory chapter and Chapters II and V, as well as the sections on northern Europe in Chapters III, VI, and VII.
The very many colleagues and friends who have helped us to complete this project can hardly be repaid for their efforts. But first and foremost we are grateful to David Freedberg. It was he who, on a fateful day in 1980, introduced us to one another at the Tate Gallery, London, and, as our fields of research naturally overlapped, suggested that we consider working together. His steady encouragement and warm friendship have been a constant point of reference during these years of preparation.
Jan Piet Filedt Kok offered personal and professional support from its very beginning, and in the last stages of writing he kindly agreed to read through the entire manuscript and offer his suggestions. We have done our best to address them, and, although we do not pretend to meet his standard of scholarship, this book should be taken as a testimony to Jan Piet’s generosity of spirit. Throughout an exceptional career as an historian and curator of prints he continues to demonstrate by his own example that scholarship is best conducted as a communal enterprise.
To Antony Griffiths, Keeper of the British Museum print room, we owe a debt that is equally difficult to describe: both as a friend and as a professional adviser, his role has been fundamental throughout. He too agreed to read a draft of the manuscript, contributed much important material, and saved us from a number of blunders. To him we are also immensely grateful. Indeed, this study could not have been entertained without the full support of the staff of the British Museum print room. What we have enjoyed over the years, however, has been much more than that, and so we wish to acknowledge the patience, courtesy, and efficiency of all who have endured our frequent visits, particularly Andrew Clary, Hilary Williams, and Ben Johnson. A very special tribute goes to Paul Dove, who undertook the arduous task of filling a complicated and very long photographic order, with many requests for special favors and many last-minute and still more last-second changes of mind. It is largely due to his kindness and efficiency that the illustrations to this book are what they are.
Of equal importance to the project were the staff and resources of the Warburg Institute, London. Among those many members of the Institute who have given us help, special mention is due here to Elizabeth McGrath for invaluable points of assistance, and for her tremendous patience in obtaining many of the photographs for illustration. In addition we should like to thank Jennifer Montagu, former curator of the photographic collection, and also John Perkins who proved ready to solve one vexing bibliographical dilemma after another.
In addition, we would like to mention the following institutions that have substantially furthered our research in various ways: the Rijksmuseum and print cabinet in Amsterdam, the Kupferstichkabinett, the Staatsbibliothek, and the Kunst-bibliothek in Berlin, the British Library in London, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte and the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung in Munich, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the Graphische Sammlung Albertina in Vienna.
Yale University Press and the authors would like to thank the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for a generous grant given to help defray expenses for illustrating the book.
Among those great many individuals to whom we owe additional thanks are: Clifford Ackley, Frank Auerbach, Michael Baxandall, Suzanne Boorsch, Antonio Brancati, Asa Briggs, Michael Bury, Barbara Butts, Ulf Cederlöf, Charles Choffet, Alessandra Corti, Keith Christiansen, Peter Day, Gianvittorio Dillon, Rudolf Distelberger, Peter Dreyer, Alexander Dückers, David Ekserdjian, Marzia Faietti, Tilman Falk, Sylvia Ferino, Richard S. Field, Henry and Felicity Fisher, Michael Gaunt, Jane Glaubinger, Richard Harprath, Craig Hartley, Carlos van Hasselt, Lee Hendrix, Christian von Heusinger, Lesley Hill, Charles Hope, Michael Jacobsen, Pierrette Jean-Richard, Jan Johnson, Thomas da Costa Kaufmann, Wouter Kloek, Joseph Koerner, Fritz Koreny, Renate Kroll, Eva Küster, Gisèle Lambert, Erika Langmuir, Ger Luijten, Elizabeth Lunning, Margery Mason, James Marrow, Jane Martineau, Jean Michel Massing, Ahmet Menteš, Hans Mielke, Keith Moxey, Konrad Oberhuber, Friederike Paetzold, Nicholas Penny, Jane Peters, Maxime Préaud, Cristiana Romalli, Andrew Robison, John Rowlands, Werner Schade, Chris Schuckman, Larry Silver, Ad Stijnman, Julien Stock, Alan Stone, Laura Suffield, Charles Talbot, Martha Tedeschi, Jan van der Waals, Umberto del Vedovo, Thea Vignau-Wilberg, Robert Williams, Nancy Yocco, and Henri Zerner.
Yale University Press has been extraordinarily cooperative in carrying our manuscript efficiently through to its final printing. John Nicoll has most graciously accommodated our many aspirations, and he has been especially generous in the provision for its illustration and format. Over the several years since our preliminary discussions, he has remained unfailingly patient with our progress. Faith Hart edited and designed the book for the Press, carrying it through its crucial stages with the love and attention of a true professional and a dear friend. Not only was she kind enough to host us during the final stages in preparing the layout, she managed to maintain her serenity through many requests for last minute changes. Bill and Luke Hart also deserve a vote of thanks for their patience while we were driving Faith mad.
Lastly, for her cheerfulness and reliability in helping us with many details in preparing the final typescript and checking the proofs, for her assistance in compiling the index, and for having performed innumerable other thankless tasks with accuracy and efficiency, we express our fond gratitude to Jennifer Peterson Amie.
David Landau owes an enormous debt to Joseph and Ruth Bromberg: as the first Michael Bromberg Fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford, in 1978 he was given the chance to devote himself to the history of art, particularly to the history of prints, thus sowing the seeds for his contribution to this book. He sees in its publication a personal homage to their generosity in endowing the Fellowship, and a tribute to their warm friendship, which he enjoyed for many years. He would equally like to acknowledge the help of Christie’s: as the first Christie’s Fellow in Renaissance Studies at Worcester College, Oxford, in 1981 he was able to continue his research in Italian and German printmaking without impediment. The award of a four-month scholarship by the German Academic Exchange Service further enabled him to study the prints of a number of German public and private collections, where many of the observations that appear in this work were first noted down. The continuous support and encouragement of the Provost and Fellows of Worcester College deserve to be made public and thanked here. This debt goes hand in hand with the constant and precious advice of Francis and Larissa Haskell, who merit a special tribute of their own for their ready and warm hospitality over many years. So do the members of staff of the Ashmolean Museum’s print room, who shared their desks with him for five years — particularly David Brown, Jon Whiteley, Ian Lowe, and Christopher Lloyd — and the two Directors, David Piper and Christopher White, who, in such different ways, were so helpful to him. No one, however, endured the preparation of this book as generously as Simi Bedford, who saw any hopes for a normal life, let alone holidays, constantly dashed by the unremittingly slow process of bringing it together. She put up with all this with a smile; in it David found the strength to bring the book to completion.
Peter Parshall’s exploration of this subject really began during his two-year tenure as a Samuel H. Kress Foundation research fellow at the Warburg Institute from 1969 to 1971, the initiation of a sustained and invaluable dependency on this matchless library and photographic archive. Over many years the former Directors, Sir Ernst Gombrich and Joseph Trapp, made the Institute a home abroad and a place of encouragement for this and other projects. In addition, his research has benefited from the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and the Howard H. Vollum Fund at Reed College. Reed College deserves particular thanks for its generous provision of clerical and financial help, and especially for its willingness to accommodate periodic leaves of absence for research and writing, and for repeated assistance with travel and library resources. Even more importantly, the College has provided him a haven for asking difficult questions in a congenial but ever-challenging setting for more than twenty years, throughout which time Charles Rhyne has been a model colleague and a steady reminder of what good scholarship is about. In a myriad of essential if often intangible ways this book is also, and very importantly, indebted to several generations of Reed College students who have shown themselves ready to engage those perennial problems that make the history of art such a pleasurable and practicing discipline. Peter’s final and most inexpressible thanks go to his dear wife, Linda, who more than anyone else has helped to shepherd the project through to completion. The shape and content of this book reflect her contribution at every level: as an informal editor, as a linguist and a stylist, a measure of cogency and general good sense, as a faithful guardian of morale, but most of all as a patient and perfect companion.