Harmony
of Space and Plane in da Vinci’s Adoration of the Magi
One
of the difficult concepts for some students to grasp when learning about
Renaissance art is that of the harmony of opposites.[i] I am revisiting a short research paper written many
years ago about an aspect of it, the harmony of space and plane.[ii] I am also
reviewing the text to improve accessibility for those newer to the
subject.
This
study explores, albeit briefly, the introduction of some elements which point
to the harmony of space and plane in the two previous compositional
sketches of Leonardo's Adoration of the Magi. Subsequently, it
offers an analysis of the different elements which contribute to the said
harmony in the (unfinished) final work, followed by a brief comparison of
Leonardo’s piece with Botticelli’s Adoration in Washington which
should help to understand the artist’s pivotal innovations.
Undoubtedly, Leonardo
da Vinci's work is a masterpiece despite the fact it never passed the stage of
an under-drawing, with no colour or even under-paint.
 |
Leonardo da Vinci Adoration of the Magi (c. 1482), Uffizi Gallery, Florence [iii]
Oil on wood panel, 97 x 96 in (246.4 x 243.8 cm)
Consulted :9/10/2013
|
As
S.J. Freedberg points out, the relevance of this cartoon lies
on the fact that
In the Early
Renaissance painting in Florence that is contemporary with
the Adoration classicizing precedents exist for many separate
elements within its style, but nowhere are these elements singly handled as
they are by Leonardo, and above all, no other contemporary combines such
elements into a comparable whole. (1961, p. 15)
To begin, the two
existing studies for the Adoration already show the complexity
of the piece Leonardo has in mind. The earlier one, a compositional sketch,
contributes a couple of important elements to the final work: the architectural
ruins of the vaults and staircase in the background, and, more importantly, the
arrangement of the central group composed by the Madonna and Child together
with the adoring figures to its right. (Costantino & Reid, 1991, p. 58)
In
essence, in Leonardo’s earliest study the relationship among the figures and of
the figures to their setting is incongruent, and the artist shows a rather
unskilled handling of the perspective configuration. (Costantino & Reid, 1991, pp. 58-61) The perspective scheme creates
an axis that intersects the picture plane which is emphasised by the group of
figures parallel to it; consequently, the overall impression is not that of a
unified and harmonious three dimensional composition. (Costantino & Reid, 1991, p. 61) In addition, the horizontal
division of the canvas into two superimposed bands contributes to the
disjointed effect: the lower band presents the group of figures in the central
scene and the upper one displays the architecture with a staircase that leads
the eyes of the observer away, and not towards the central scene.
As Costantino and
Reid point out, the imperfections evident in the first sketch are,
nevertheless, resolved in a later perspective study below. (1991, p. 61)
 |
Leonardo da Vinci, Perspective Study for the adoration of the Magi (c. 1481), Ufizzi Gallery, Florence [v]
Pen and ink, traces of silverpoint and white on paper, 6.42 x 11.42 (16.3 x 29 cm)
|
Leonardo exchanges the difficult handling of the perspective in the previous sketch for a definitively plausible spatial layout. (Costantino & Reid, 1991, p. 61) In this second sketch, Leonardo achieves a coherent space noticeably by sitting the vanishing point askew on the horizon line; by representing space not only through orthogonal lines but also by introducing Alberti's perspective scheme - shown in Leonardo’s sketch by the division of the tiled floor surface; and partly by “peopling this mathematically exact formula with vibrant figures and exotic beasts.” (Costantino & Reid, 1991, p. 61) To cap this up, Leonardo moves the stairway from right to left, thus guiding the spectator toward the central scene rather than away from it.
Although
Leonardo uses basically the same composition of the Perspective Study in
the cartoon, some elements are altered in the latter. Essentially,
in the final composition, the artist frees the space from most of the
architectural structure: he eliminates the traditional stable or shed from
his Adoration leaving the space open to accommodate the
central group of figures in the foreground and all the other figures
around it. (Costantino & Reid, 1991, p. 61) In
such way, Leonardo creates the space not by using the Albertian perspective
grid, but by the inversion of the same. (Freedberg, 1961, p. 9) Accordingly, da
Vinci’s space “… begins with the figures: their own volume shapes surrounding
space. Thus, in a large pictorial structure like the Adoration, the
space is a consequence of, an incidental to, the figures’ grouping.” (Freedberg, 1961, p. 9) This can be clearly
observed in the drawing bellow in which the tonal gradation of light existing
in the cartoon has been eliminated.
 |
Illustration of the "Adoration" by Fernando Ramirez M. (2013) [vi]
Ink over pencil on paper, 11.69 x 8.27 in (29.7 x 21) cm
Copy of a drawing by Paul Müller-Walde (1898).
|
After the creation of his vast space, Leonardo harmonises it with
the two dimensional plane.
As I
learned in my Renaissance Art History class, in painting, harmony of space and
plane is achieved basically by superposing the closest point, line or plane in
the composition over the vanishing point – that is the point, line or plane
furthest from the eye. This is done to reduce the depth of illusory three
dimensional space and, as a consequence, harmonising the latter with the two
dimensional reality of the work of art. In other words, the aim of this
artifice is to avoid the occurrence
of a natural effect: the perspective leading the eyes of the observer
away from the main subject in the composition and into the vanishing point.
In his Adoration, Leonardo precludes this by covering his vanishing point – off
centre to the right– with an ilex tree. (Emboden, 1987, pp. 203 & 214) The
ilex contributes a very strong vertical placed clearly in the middle ground, forcing
the attention of the viewer on the central group of figures in the foreground.
Da Vinci
uses other components to reinforce spatial harmony.
For
instance, by eliminating most of the architectural structure, he reduces the
amount of orthogonals. Likewise, the angles of the sketchy architecture,
on the right background at the top, are open and they do not lead toward the
vanishing point.
 |
Left: Leonardo da Vinci’s Adoration, details and source as stated on the image above.
Diagram to the right: Open angles of the architectural structure and main expressive lines of Leonardo’s Adoration. |
These deviations from the Albertian one point perspective result in the reduction of depth in the pictorial space; consequently, they contribute to the harmony of space and plane.
To
further unify the piece, the artist combines two-dimensional shapes with three
dimensional ones. I explain: from a bird’s eye perspective, the figures
surrounding the central group, which has the Virgin’s head as its apex, form a
pyramid similar to the model previously conceived by Pollaiuollo in his Martyrdom
of Saint Sebastian of 1475. (Hartt, 1986, p. 604) The three-dimensional
form is contrasted by the evident two-dimensional triangle formed by the
figures of the Virgin and the Magi in the foreground. Simply said, the impact
of the triangle has a flattening effect on the pictorial space.
 |
| Some geometrical lines incorporated to Ramirez' illustration of Leonardo da Vinci’s Adoration. |
Likewise, Leonardo contrasts a semi-circle (2-D) with the
three-dimensional sort of human niche formed by the figures surrounding the
Madonna and Child adding to the same effect.
 |
| Ibid. |
In his
analysis of the work, Freedberg observes quite appropriately that the main
expressive lines form an X - shown above in the image with the main expressive
lines, which not only flattens the space but also contributes to the unity of
the composition by binding
…
together all elements within composition, not only in the foreground but in the
background: the distance with its variety of form – less stringently discipline
as the scene diffuses into space – is bound into and upon the primary scheme of
design. (Freedberg, 1961, p. 8)
Moreover, he continues,
…the
linking of the distance and the foreground depends, not on a perspective
structure, but on the incorporation of the elements of distance into one
pattern with that of the foreground – a pattern that, in this instance, is in
the main an ordering in the surface of the picture. (Freedberg, 1961, p. 8)
This same
scheme is used in the treatment of light. By bringing some of the background
light into the foreground and illuminating the central figures with it, and
doing the reverse with the two trees in the middle and background, Leonardo
links even more background and foreground. The painter's distribution of light
adds to the unity of the composition as well: whereas the bright light that
illuminates the background brings this plane closer to the observer, the
darkness in the foreground recedes the plane; thus the pictorial space
contracts. Similarly, the sfumato light surrounding the dark
figures placed around the Virgin and Child, in the middle-ground, flattens this
receding space by creating a tonal plane.
In
comparing Leonardo’s Adoration with Botticelli’s elegant
Washington Adoration of the same period, one can observe some common elements; as
occurred often at the time, the two painters probably knew of each other’s work.
Both works have the same semi-circular figure arrangement and both form a triangle with the Virgin and the adoring Magi; however, Botticelli’s painting keeps the traditional stable and respects Alberti’s one point perspective. He also places an hypothetical observer at the centre, entirely inside the composition. (Hartt, 1986, p. 329) Consequently, all other worshipers, including us, have no place in the scene. (Hartt, 1986). Hartt detects that the attention of the viewer is therefore directed to the central group of figures. (1986, p. 329) However, with his remark, Hartt neglects to point out that the eyes of the viewer will be drawn, naturally, towards the furthest (vanishing) point, which in Botticelli’s composition is placed to the right, behind the central scene. In such way, the artist guides the regard of the observer away from the focal point of the work. Therefore, despite its inherent beauty and elegance and its similarities with Leonardo's Adoration, Botticelli’s piece is not as successful and innovative as that of Leonardo in its achievement of harmony of space and plane.
In fact,
as previously stated, Leonardo’s accomplishments in this area foreshadow that
of his contemporaries by a couple of decades. And, it is precisely there where
his genius lies: this ability to anticipate his contemporaries and the
tendencies that will mark the art of the High Renaissance. A marvelous set of components
of this anticipation are featured in his brilliant success harmonising space
and plane in his precedent setting Adoration of the Magi.
[ii] Thanks to professor T. Martone for making it the compulsory
essay for his Renaissance class.
[iii] According
to Wikimedia “This work is in the public domain in the United States and those
countries with a copy right term of the life of the author of 100 years or
less.” Furthermore, “this file has been identified as been identified as being
free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related
neighboring rights."
[iv] Ibid.
[v] ibid.
[vi] My thanks to Fernando Ramirez Mendoza for the
excellent drawing.
[vii] According to Wikimedia “This work is in the
public domain in the United States and those countries with a copy right term
of the life of the author of 100 years or less.” Furthermore, “this file has
been identified as been identified as being free of known restrictions under
copyright law, including all related neighboring rights."
Bibliography
Costantino, Maria & Reid, Aileen (1991). Leonardo. London:
Bison Books Ltd.
Freedberg, Sydney J. (1961). Painting
of the High Renaissance in Rome and Florence.Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Emboden,
W. A. (1987). Leonardo Da Vinci on Plants and Gardens. Oregon:
Discorides Press.
Hartt, Frederick (1986). "The High
Renaissance in Central Italy". In F. Hartt, Art, a History of
Painting, Sculpture, Architecture (pp. 601-626). New York: Harry N.
Abrams Inc.
Hartt, Frederick (1986). History of Italian
Renaissance in Rome and Florence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heydenreich, Ludwig H. (1974). Leonardo: The Last Supper.
London: Allen Lane.
Holt, Elizabeth (1981). A Documentary History of Art: The
Middle Ages and the Renaissance. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Leonardo da Vinci, Kemp,
Martin ed. (1989). On Painting. New Haven: Yale University Press.
(1841). Codice Trivulaciano, transcription and notes by Luca Beltrami.
No. 144 from a 200 print run. nc/np.
McMullen, Roy (1975). Mona Lisa: The Picture and the Myth.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Müller-Walde,Paul (1889 ). Leonardo
da Vinci: Lebensskizze und Forschungen über sein Verhältniss zur Florentiner Kunst
und du Rafael. Munich:
Google e-book (consulted 9/2/2013).
Ottino della Chiesa, Angela (1967). La
Obra pictórica completa de Leonardo. Barcelona: Editorial Noguer S.A.
Salvini, Roberto
(1958). Tutta la pittura del Botticelli. Milan: Rizzoli, 1st ed.,
vols. I & II.
White, John (1987). Birth and Rebirth of the Pictorial
Space. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
