Visual Analysis of Bronzino’s Portraits

Over the years artists have come up with some of the most bizarre works of art; ever since the fifteenth century spreading through to the 21^st, different artists have used different methods, styles, material and perspectives to create the best artifacts known to date. The 16^th century marked one of the most pivitol eras in art history with some of the most prominent paintings having their origin within this time period. The portrait of cosimo i de' medici and of that of Pierantonio Bandini are some of the renowned mentions from this period. Keep in mind that both the artefacts are of Italian decent; this fact speaks to the kind of artistic genius which existed in the area especially when mentions like Leonardo Da Vinci’s monalisa are considered. The aim of this paper is to present a visual analysis of cosimo i de' medici and Pierantonio Bandini while analyzing this artistic era.        

The most obvious comparison of the two paintings is the fact that both are from Italian painters. The cosimo i de' medici was done in 1545 by a man called Bronzino; it showed the painting of Cosimo de Medici who was a prince and Italian merchant responsible for the introduction of cultural jewelry (Dooley, 613). On the other hand, the Pierantonio Bandini is commonly known as the portrait of a Man with a Statuette of Venus which represents a portrait of one of the most prominent bankers living in rome. The most interesting part about this comparison is that both paintings were done by Bronzino. Bronzino was prominent for many portraits including several portraits of Grand Duke Cosimo I de' Medici.             

Both of the paintings speak about the backgrounds of both men, while they were both wealthy, their professional differences can be pointed out by looking at the portraits. Cosimo was a merchant and most of his life was spent exploring and appreciating different art forms; ideally, his job description would revolve around some difficult or dangerous situations. This could explain his body amour and the build physique; it would not be surprising if there are accounts of him battling other groups of merchants in his exploits (Wellen, 391). Pierantonio is the exact opposite of the Cosimo painting and his kind of life; he was a prominent banker in Rome during the 14^th century. The portrait portrays him as an elegant man dressed in elegant clothing; it is possible to say that the man is a first class citizen lavishing in wealth. His job description could be attributed to his appearance and stature.              

Bronzino’s paintings are known for the sophisticated nature and attention to detail, some of the most significant works have been appreciated for the accuracy and intention of every brush stroke. The Cosimo I de’ Medici was painted with Tempera on panel; the luster of the images and purity of the painting shows it clearly (Dooley, 620). The audience can see the detail in shadows and how they point out creases in the canvas behind the man in the painting. Moreover, the portrait is 74 cm × 58 cm (29 in × 23 in) in dimensions. The Pierantonio portrait was done differently, Bronzino incorporated oil on wood, like poplar to paint it which is seen by the fine finishing on Pierantonio’s coat and the shiny appearance of the background. Unlike the Cosimo portrait, this one was designed on a 106.7 x 82.5 cm canvas.             

The most interesting thing about the persons in the portraits is their individual interests were shared mutually. While Cosimo de Medici was a merchant, he was interested in cultural artefacts which he brought with him back to Italy after his exile for different political reasons. His love for art is not evident from the painting but the stories of his exploits serve as evidence. On the flipside, Pierantonio’s painting encompasses him and a tiny detail on his side in the form of a headless sculpture. It was known as the "Venus Pudica" which was one of the collectibles found in his property in Rome (Wellen, 391). Both paintings speak about the individual interests of the men in them; while they do not speak clearly to their artistic interest, it is evident that both people were collectors of different artefacts.             

Bronzino’s paintings intricate portrayal by the craftsman, which could cause a doctor to suspect a concealed compulsive disorder. The models' personalities are known, with the exception of the sitters, for whom no authentic reports of any visual disease could be found. Furthermore, despite straining eyes, Bronzino himself showed similar sitters in many paintings. Binocular vision considers stereopsis, which is the perception of depth and three-layered structure from visual data, when both eyes are properly aligned (Dooley, 621). Strabismus is a condition that can be inborn, acquired, or secondary to other compulsive situations. With depictions that were faultlessly reasonable, he was portrayed as the frigid and, frequently, self-important articulations of his aristocracy sitters. The subjects had clear, yet uninteresting, appearances at first, but gradually a sense of respectability and haughtiness. It's unlikely that a painter with such a solid reputation for depicting points of interest would inadvertently include misaligned eyes.             

Bronzino's inventive flair is obvious in his picture of Cosimo I de' Medici in Armor. The painting of Cosimo exemplifies his Manneristic painting style. The serene elegance reflected in Cosimo's manner imparts a distinct style that may be found in a significant number of his photographs. Bronzino's painstaking attention to his brush strokes is seen in the multidimensional enumeration of the protective layer. Bronzino's technique of portraying Cosimo as honestly secluded from the public is another one-of-a-kind signature he transmits. Cosimo's head is tilted to the left, and his hand is casually resting on his protective cap. 

Bronzino purposefully incorporated the aberration as a statement of splendor, according to another clarification. In today's world, a squinting eye is usually associated with being ugly. In any event, a slight tilt of the eye to avoid looking outwards has frequently demonstrated morality and even excellence in past social structures. The widely known 'strabismus of Venus' is an unpredictable positioning of the eyes that is believed to give her a flawed wonder, despite the fact that it will never be confirmed assuming to be sure the goddess of splendor possessed that small abnormality (Dooley, 619). The hand token of Bronzino's sitters is a similar topic of debate. To be sure, as depicted in their self-portraits, Rembrandt van Rijn, Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, Albrecht Dürer, and Edgar Degas were notable squinting specialists. Additionally, non-affected painters such as Raphael and Georges de la Tour represented a few additional cases with strabismus. These painters make no attempt to hide the wandering poor-located eye in their self-portraits. 

The brighter portions of the artwork are Cosimo himself, but everything around him is dark tones, his use of variety makes audiences want to focus even more on him. The use of lines in the enumeration of this work of art should be obvious. From the basis of the drapes to the many-sided intricacies of the covering, line should be apparent. There's also the line that Cosimo's appearance draws. Because of the intelligent surface and the way the light shoots on the protection, the surface of the reinforcement that Cosimo is wearing almost appears to be reasonable. Because Cosimo takes up nearly the entire photo, scale is used to indicate how large he is. 

Bronzino's works, such as his paintings and self-portraits, sonnets, and key life stories, however, failed to provide any comments about his squinting eye. As a result, it's unlikely that Bronzino's style was influenced by his own neurotic condition, based on his works of art. The craftsmen's preference for a more practical portrayal may have been influenced by their notion of a no-show eye (Wellen, 398). The fact that almost every sitter had a little squint suggests that Bronzino may have used a similar model or a pattern derived from one model for the subsequent composition. This would also support the theory that the craftsman was aware of strabismus in order to make the sitters appear more attractive, which is plausible. Everything is proportionate to each other visible by the use of extent demonstrates Cosimo's rational character. Everything in this picture looks to be balanced by Cosimo's evenness and the way the many variations complement each other. The reflection and Cosimo's skin tone are the most noticeable differences in this artwork. The two of them stand out more in comparison to the bland varieties, and they stand out even more when they're focused on Cosimo. Because of how Bronzino has Cosimo hang around in this portrayal, the beat of the painting draws our attention to him. 

Conclusion             

Bronzino's paintings are works of art in which the exquisite, and at times, the distinctive unemotional or un-passionate, yet determined disposition of the sitters is ruined in some way or another by another eye to appear completely logical. Despite the fact that we can't totally rule out the possibility that Bronzino used manipulated models, the'meandering' eye is a hallmark of Bronzino's style. Certainly, considering strabismus is important for Mannerism's desire to use exaggerated trademarks while simultaneously pursuing an increasing authenticity that was typical of fifteenth and sixteenth century advancements. In the end, the Italian painter was mesmerized by the unusual perception of a single eye. As a result, it appears that the best bet is that the squint was purposefully inserted by the artisan in order to make the sitter's appearance unusual in some way, while also reflecting the expanded anatomic precision of the age.

Bibliography 

Dooley, B., 2021. Cosimo I de’Medici and Modern Historiography. In A Companion to Cosimo I de’Medici (pp. 606-628). 

Brill. Wellen, S. (2018). Bronzino’s Portrait of Antonio Lapi: A Hypothetical Identification with Considerations of Chronology and Costume in Bronzino’s Male Portraits. I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance, 21(2), 389-421.