F R E S C O 773 when he chose he could rival the finish and refinement of Leonardo da Vinci ; he created the art of characteristic portraiture, whilst lie could rise to a lofty ideal. He shadowed forth the power of form of Michelangelo, the natural dignity of Raphael, the brilliant chiaroscuro of Correggio, and the rich colour of Titian. He cast behind him the conventional pattern-like landscape of his prede cessors, and hinted at a new and true idea of representing scenery. Technically he painted with an impasto, and a freedom hitherto unthought of, except by his reputed master Masolino da Panicale, who had sufficient insight in moments of his existence to escape from formalism and to feel the influence of nature. It is not to be won dered at that with such qualities as these Masaccio s frescos should have been objects of study and admiration to gen erations of artists. An aberration in modern criticism and a fantastic and somewhat weak devotion to mediaeval forms gives a transient preference to the works of his devout contemporary; but in those of Masaccio the great prin ciples of the revival rise brilliantly above the horizon; in those of Fra Beato the ideas of the Middle Ages set with pure and tranquil ray. With the advancement of the art of painting we have a discreditable decline in the requisite structural preparations, which has produced disastrous effects ou many noble works of art. Frescos were only too frequently painted upon ill-built rubble walls, with unequal surfaces, which were not brought to a level by careful preparatory coats of plaster. This is unfortunately exemplified in the frescos of Masaccio. The results of uneven surfaces are the ac cumulation of dust on the pictures and of other impu rities, seldom removed, and the removal of which is accompanied by a certain risk. The careful structure of the Romans was known to their Italian successors, and was described by Leon Battista Alberti and other architects, but apparently with little effect. It is absolutely necessary that walls intended to be painted upon should be very care fully constructed ; the Pompeian system is excellent, and to it may be added thin beds of asphalt at the bases and summits of the stone or brick work. It must never be forgotten that damp is a deadly enemy to fresco-painting, and that unequal surfaces are unsightly as well as destructive. The history of mural painting may next be illustrated by reference to the works of Benozzo Gozzoli. As a pupil of Fra Beato Angelico it might be expected that he would continue to use distemper painting extensively, and such was the case. Greatly excelling his master in power of drawing, although with less sentiment, endowed with prolific fancy and capable of unwearied exertion, he has left very important mural pictures, which were begun in fresco, but were so entirely finished with distemper as to be in fact distemper pictures. The joinings of the intonaco in his works present a somewhat unusual appearance. They are for the most part carefully concealed, but in one of his compositions at Pisa they are very observable, and they are invariably cut at some distance from the outlines of the figures ; they are not unlike the joints between the polygons which form an Etruscan wall. Thus they include considerable portions of the background. Other artists, notably Masolino, and at a later period Michelangelo, fre quently included parts of the background in the day s painting, which artists will readily recognize as, where possible, important in principle. The objection, however, is obvious. The joinings which do not follow the outlines disfigure the surface, unless carefully concealed by the help of distemper painting, which in modern times would be considered objectionable. When the paintings are so far from the eye that the joinings are invisible, as in the Capella Sistina, the method is valuable. Towards the close of the 15th century Filippino Lippi in his works further illustrates the history of mural painting. He was employed to finish Masaccio s fresco in the Brancacci Chapel, representing the liaising of the King s Son, and he showed himself to be in every respect worthy of the honourable commission. He painted in the centre of the picture a group of eight figures, the heads of which in truth to nature and refined execution literally never have been ex celled. He lacks the force of Masaccio; he did not see the effect of sunlight in the same way; he rather painted twilight; but he introduced into fresco a variety in the management of flesh tints and grace of technical execution which unfor tunately diminished in his later works. These were his j characteristics when he painted in competition with Masaccio. j His method was also to prepare the draperies of the figures in fresco, and then to glaze them copiously with dis temper colour. Whilst Masaccio invariably painted hands
- in fresco, Fillippino as invariably painted them in tempera
- over the draperies. This may have saved trouble, but was
I not otherwise commendable. It is to be remarked that J apparently he first shaded them with terra vert like the j mediaeval painters, subsequently adding the flesh tints. Domenico Ghirlandajo follows as an important and very able mural painter. He also commenced his works in fresco, in which he painted admirably with a large effective manner combined with finish. He used distemper exten sively ; and as an unctuous glazing has been found upon frescos by his brother Rodolfo, it is possible that a new pro cess of retouching was introduced by these brothers. It may have been in their studio that Michelangelo when a boy learnt to retouch fresco in tempera ; he undoubtedly retained in his method some impressions derived from his first teachers. Pietro Perugino excelled in the art of fresco-painting as it was understood in his time. His works illustrate two very different methods. He painted in pure fresco ; and it may be observed that, whilst his oil pictures are marked by such rich and powerful colouring, some of his frescos are like delicate water-colour drawings. A glance at the wall paintings of Masaccio would have shown him how far colour can be obtained in fresco. No doubt he had his motives, and when he wished to produce force and colour, like all other artists of the time he had recourse to re touching in distemper. His famous frescos in the Sala del Cambio at Perugia, are thus retouched all over, and consequently the usual and unequal darkening of the colours has taken place. They have force, but they have lost all brilliancy, and they illustrate in a remarkable way the inexpediency of a manner of painting which would suffer from the mephitic atmosphere of a crowded place of meeting. Pure frescos would have remained clear or could have been cleaned, whilst retouched frescos darkened with out remedy. Another remarkable contemporary artist, Bernardino Pinturicchio may be said to have carried distemper painting over fresco to the most extravagant degree of any master of his time. He fell back on the primitive conventions of gilt rilievo ornaments in stucco in his paintings, on hatch ing with gold, and other barbaric splendours of early art. His mural pictures at Siena resemble illuminations in choral books. They are in excellent preservation, having escaped damp and bad air within the well-built library of the cathedral. It is obvious that the progress made in oil-painting in the 15th century must have produced important effects upon fresco and ideas connected with it. Some oil painters transferred to their art the light brilliancy of wall painting, and notably Michelangelo in his oil picture for Angelo Doni. Leonardo da Vinci estimated more justly the capabilities of the more powerful vehicle. Tempera, after a brief struggle, sank before it, and disappeared from amongst tho
