sehepunkte 25 (2025), Nr. 7/8

Marie-Louise Lillywhite: Reforming Art in Renaissance Venice

Most of what we perceive today when visiting churches in Venice was largely shaped by two historic events: the first being the Council of Trent (1545-63) and the second the Napoleonic era with the Fall of the Venetian Republic (1797).

In many ways these are even intertwined, as exemplified by one of the most famous paintings associated with the Tridentine Council in Venice, Paolo Veronese's Feast in the House of Levi. Originally, Veronese was commissioned to paint a Last Supper for the refectory of Santi Giovanni e Paolo but after the painting was finished in 1573, he was questioned by the Inquisition about the iconography, which included many more figures and curious elements, that were a thorn in the flesh of the Tridentine reformers. Veronese refused to adjust the painting itself and only changed its title to another scene from the life of Christ that was less restricted to include a specific number of figures. The painting was later confiscated by the Napoleonic troops, transported to Paris and only later sent back to the Lagoon city where it was not reinstated in its original place but is now part of the Gallerie dell'Accademia's collection.

The discussion sparked by this (in)famous case has long since dominated the study of post-Tridentine Venetian art that has been labeled non-conformist on both the scale of the individual (e.g. artists) and concerning the city's ruling government. However, more recent studies about Veronese have shown that there was almost no reaction from the artist's contemporaries or writers recording his life and that the whole case was only brought up when the archival material about it resurfaced in the 19th century. [1]

In her most recent book titled "Reforming Art in Renaissance Venice", Marie-Louise Lillywhite presents a more holistic and critical view of how the Tridentine decrees changed the artistic climate in terms of iconography but also in terms of quantity/output. By distancing herself from the still pervasive and over-sensationalizing argumentation of the oppressed Venetians and the rebellious painters, she manages to present us with a more accurate and complete picture of the artistic production in Venice post-Trent, which is likely to become the standard reference on the topic. While books like Martin Seidel's study on painting in Venice during the Counter-Reformation had the tendency to lean too much onto old narratives, Lillywhite's greatest accomplishment lies in her more differentiated view and her desire to understand the changes in religious painting in late-16th century Venice without following popular storytelling but by returning to and reassessing the sources (paintings, commissions, archival material) themselves. [2]

In the beginning she establishes two principles or leading arguments (3-5): The first is that in the above-mentioned narrative of repression, relying on rather exceptional cases of censorship, there is no room for artistic freedom. But this stands in no relation to the artistic creations and also the quantity of works produced for church commissions in Venice after 1563, as Lillywhite rightly corrects. The second argument is that the perception of Venetian churches by visitors from outside the lagoon city but also by the local population was not a critical one but rather marked by marvel at their beauty and decoration. These written accounts of contemporary visitors stand in no relation to the controversy about the supposed non-conformist tendencies of Venetians proclaimed by art historians from the late 19th century onwards. [3] Whereas books like Marcia Hall's The Sacred Image in the Age of Art pitted two events of 1563 - namely the Council of Trent's image decree and the foundation of the Accademia del disegno in Florence in the same year - against each other, Lillywhite tries to embed these developments, that happened rather independently, within a bigger picture of artists during the Catholic reform. [4] Removing these events from the concept of a conflict of interests, Lillywhite proves that the Church in Italy - and Venice as the center of this case study - was in no way opposed to artists developing their own guilds and infrastructure, establishing themselves as independent from gilders and other artisans.

What distinguishes Lillywhite's book from other studies on the impact of Trent on artists is that she does not start off with the last session of the Council itself but dedicates the first chapter to the origins of this development, embedding the outcome of the Council's decrees within this context of a longer evolution that had its roots in the beginning of the 16th century. She also openly discusses that the concept, that the artist's religious belief will directly manifest visually in his works, should always be treated with caution. This is exemplified in the first chapter in which the particularly controversial case of Lorenzo Lotto is analyzed (41-49). Lotto seems to have catered to both secret-Protestants and conformist-Catholics, painting works so diverse as a portrait of Martin Luther and a fresco showing the fall and persecution of heretics for a chapel of a patron in Trescore in the province of Bergamo. Lillywhite's analysis is characterized by an always down-to-earth argumentation that never borders on overinterpretation. Another strength of her book lies in the many archival sources she consulted and publishes for the first time that add to our knowledge about religious beliefs in Venice at the time. While the first part of the book tries to chronologically follow the two timelines - one of artistic production and the other of writings and discourses on religious reform and their perception plus following actions in Venice - the second part of the book offers a concrete analysis of certain iconographies. It is in this second part where Lillywhite tackles the thorny issue of how depictions of Christ or the saints have changed before and after Trent - not broadly speaking but rather specifically by demonstrating the how and why for the concrete cases (e.g. images of the Eucharist or of almsgiving). While touching upon the classic but highly overinterpreted case of Veronese's painting of the Feast in the House of Levi briefly in the beginning of her book, Lillywhite manages to distinguish herself from this stereotypical line of reasoning and to develop and establish a history of religious reforms and their impact on Venetian art without falling into the trap of hyperbolic narratives.

The clear structure and differentiated argumentation of the book together with the analysis that is centered on certain case studies but at the same time tied back to an overall development of the Catholic reform, serves as an ideal companion for the study of sacred art in Venice during the 16th century not only for scholars of Venetian art, but also for students of art history at all levels.

Notes:

[1] See e.g. James S. Grubb: When Myths Lose Power: Four Decades of Venetian Historiography, in: Journal of Modern History 58:1 (1986), 43-94; Bernard Aikema: Pictor religiosus, in: Bernard Aikema / Paola Marini (eds.): Paolo Veronese. L'Illusione della realtà, exh. cat. (Verona, Palazzo della Gran Guardia, 5 July - 5 October 2014), Milan 2014, 241-254.

[2] Martin Seidel: Venezianische Malerei zur Zeit der Gegenreformation: kirchliche Programmschriften und künstlerische Bildkonzepte bei Tizian, Tintoretto, Veronese und Palma il Giovane, Münster 1996.

[3] A discussion maybe sparked by the publication of the archival document on Veronese's case of the Last Supper: Armand Baschet: Paul Véronèse appelé au Tribunal du Saint Office à Venise (1573), in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts 23 (1876), 378-382.

[4] Marcia B. Hall: The Sacred Image in the Age of Art: Titian, Tintoretto, Barocci, El Greco, Caravaggio, New Haven 2011.