(above left: Mannerist painting by Parmigianino; right: naturalist work by Annibale Carracci)

In 1589, with the founding of the Accademia degli Incamminati—now one of the oldest art academies in existence (see Accademia Clementina, Bologna, Italy)—members of the Carracci family sought to wrestle life back into art. The two brothers, Annibale and Agostino , along with their cousin Ludovico, set out to unite research of the natural environment with art education. Of the various reasons they wished to do so, one is of primary concern to many artists working today—and clarifies the purpose of this brief essay. The Carracci family wished to empower their Bolognese compatriots with the means to fully captivate an audience. This, of course, was in direct response to the very trendy manner (mannerism, see example by Parmigianino above left) of drawing that had, by then, saturated the region’s artistic schools of thought–and which had become so artificial, as to begin to erode public interest and eventually draw criticism upon the artists themselves.

Through an almost blind adherence to formulas set down by members of the previous generation, artists had lost sight of their public’s (read patrons’) needs to relate to the art they made. Most importantly, this manner came to dominate, even eclipse any naturalism to which their audience could respond. Imagine a figure whose neck is shown twisted inhumanly backwards in order to create beautiful negative space.

Ironically, four hundred years later, we find ourselves (as artists) in an analogous scenario, but one in which the mannered subject is no longer beauty. After all, few “contemporary”* artists are scrambling to refine their compositions or elongate their forms toward any notion of ideal aesthetic. Some readers may question whether a contemporary manner could even be possible given the multitude of directions art has recently taken. To clarify that it is not only possible, but tangible, and to index aspects of the mannerism growing today, is a central aim of this blog. For the moment, a few examples should suffice: the notion “if the public likes it, it can’t be good art“, outright rejection of pre-1945 influence, the ubiquitous…drip.

Oddly enough, a dominant tendency in contemporary mannerism is to obfuscate the artist’s intent, often dissociating the non-art public. Officially acceptable, however, are works reflecting (on and within) the “art world” itself, and those distancing the artist’s voice from the society at large. An erroneous belief commonly held by artists throughout modern history is that one’s work can or should be “free” from the constraints of the society which affords it. But this idea has consistently proven false, and for good reason. Never can the artist’s work—nor the actions of anyone—achieve complete autonomy. To do so would be libertine. In any case, one might ask, “for whom could that art be made, and why?”

Should artists leave public awareness to advertisers and corporate interests, who demonstrate great enthusiasm in directing culture? It is worth noting that those tendencies receiving the widest endorsement from today’s official art media, often benefit corporate and not public interests, on this issue. I personally believe that there is a point that artists today could take from the school of the Carracci, whose founders confronted a similar situation. They responded by choosing to empower themselves and others by re-examining nature–including their own place within it.

The means by which artists today might achieve the same is be the primary subject of this blog.