In 14th century Venice there seemed to be two opposing artistic traditions: the Greek Style, and those who repudiated it. There are some aspects of the Greek Style that Paolo Veneziano appears to embrace in his rendition of Betrayal of Christ from 1345, now in the Berkeley Art Museum, with tight figural positioning and use of gold leaf. Giotto’s Betrayal of Christ painted in 1305 in the Arena Chapel in Padua, manifests the same subject but forgoes the use of gold leaf, more closely resembling what many would refer to as Renaissance in style. The numerous variations between these works do not only pertain to the formal and stylistic discrepancies between the two, but moreover boast functional and narrative differences that change the physical and perceived narrative settings of the paintings. Though it has been argued by some that these two artists and styles are the embodiment of contradiction, it is rather a conversation between time, artists, and tradition that allows for the variation, and the artists should not be forced to conform to a single, rigid art historical category.
Giotto painted the fresco of the Betrayal of Christ as part of a narrative sequence in the Arena Chapel. In this scene, Judas kisses Jesus in the garden to reveal him to the authorities. Jesus and Judas are centered in the composition, surrounded by various other figures including Simon Peter to the left side of the composition, cutting off an ear as an attempt at distraction. The figures appear to mostly be looking at Judas and Jesus. In this image, there are groups of figures gathered behind the figures in the foreground of the composition. These figures are only discernible from their helmets and the poles that they hold up. The composition is fairly balanced and there is more mass toward the bottom of the painting as the upper portion of the painting is reserved for the sky. The sky in this image is a deep blue color, similar to the dark blue used in many Byzantine mosaics, and one can assume that it is evening. This, coupled with the use of torches affirms the setting for the narrative. Despite this taking place in a garden, there is no visible plant life, and instead the focus is solely on the figures and players in the scene. The composition is dynamic, with natural movement and diagonal lines throughout the image. The abundant colors are vibrant. There is a skilled use of modeling and the figures are rendered naturally and realistically. The gradient tonal differences in light and shadow are apparent in Giotto’s image. This gradation and use of chiaroscuro creates volume which is visible on the garments worn by the figures in the composition. The figure of Christ is largely covered by the silky robe worn by Judas, as if the two are enrobed together. There was at the time a movement by more modern artists to replace gold, associated with outdated tradition, with yellow. This is why there is the gold visible in Jesus’ robe in Veneziano’s image, but the robe worn by Judas in Giotto’s image is yellow. The bodily occlusion of Jesus’ figure creates viscerality and confirms Jesus’ narrative place in mortal reality. Jesus’ concealment physically protects him as a sacred being, while he is simultaneously being revealed in the garden, the driving force of the narrative.
Veneziano’s Betrayal of Christ is a tempera and gold leaf work on panel, the support visible at the edges of the image. This composition is centrally balanced, with the present figures centered in the middle of the image, the ground line located at the bottom edge of the painting. The figures consume most of the mass in the composition, and they are congregated in one dynamic group holding torches and various tools and weapons. Like the painting by Giotto, Jesus and Judas are situated at the center of the image, with Judas to the right of Jesus, kissing his cheek, and Simon Peter on the left-hand side of the composition cutting the ear of one of the authorities. Veneziano’s composition features fewer background figures than Giotto’s, a development in the simplification of form past that of Giotto. The figures appear stiffer than Giotto’s, and lend a more static nature to the scene. This compositional advancement, some find, is challenging the stiff figural tendencies of past works before Giotto, but artistic development is nonlinear. The movement that is visible looks forced, and some of the figures are in unrealistic positions. For example, the men on either side of Jesus and Judas are standing on their toes with their legs wide apart, and somehow their toes appear to barely touch the ground. The scene takes place at night, but the use of gold leaf inhibits our visual instinct that associates dark colors with the night, and the torches held by three of the figures are what express the time of day. The source of light appears to be coming from the center of the crowd, from Jesus’ halo or from the torches, highlighting the metal helmets worn by the authorities. The real light comes from the torches, and the narrative light comes from Jesus. This light gives way to limited instances of modeling as seen in the helmet and garments of the figures in the composition. The bodies and visages are treated more naturalistically than other paintings in the similar Greek Style, but still less naturalized than Giotto. While there is some modeling and limited tonal gradation, the garments lie flatter in both color and shape than Giotto’s. The color palette is what largely links Veneziano to the Greek Style. The Greek Style and traditional Byzantine-style works often featured a heavy use of gold which became the focal point of the image. There are other colors used in the composition, like the blues and greens of the robes and helmets, but the gold overpowers these shades. The colors that are present in the painting are more muted than those in Giotto’s work.
Giotto painted his Betrayal of Christ in 1305, and Veneziano was aware of Giotto’s rendition as he painted his Betrayal in 1345. This is why the compositions are so similar. Veneziano’s painting is a fusion of style, and not to be simply thought of as Greek Manner. While his image does boast the use of gold leaf, the composition and use of modelling are reminiscent of Giotto’s work, a painter who disobeyed many of the rules of the Greek and traditional iconic style such as renouncing the use of gold. While employing some techniques used by artists painting in a traditional style and applying them to a more modernized composition, Veneziano’s image can bridge some of the stylistic gaps between the Greek Style and Giotto’s style associated with variety Veneziano is not only looking back to Giotto for inspiration, but potentially to the artists that came before Giotto, like Cimabue, as well.
Veneziano’s painting is a fragment of a larger unidentified work and it is possible that is could have been created as a protective cover for a reliquary or highly charged artwork, or as part of a predella. In the case of protective covers, art, especially in the narrative and iconic traditions is meant to mediate humanity and divinity. Covers like the the Pala Feriale over the Pala d’Oro in San Marco not only act as a protective cover for the object of veneration, but also protect people from the object’s power. The holy power is mediated in the ability to either conceal or reveal the object. As a fragment of a predella, Veneziano’s Betrayal of Christ would have been located at the bottom of an altarpiece likely in a narrative sequence. Visually, pieces like the Pala Feriale, Duccio’s Maesta in Siena, and Veneziano’s Betrayal of Christ reflect and produce light due to the reflective nature of gold leaf, contributing to the perceived divinity and sacredness of the image. This reflective property also offers a protective aspect. Veneziano’s use of gold is meant to create a striking visual effect, especially if the Betrayal of Christ were available in its original larger context. In this case, the overall visual effect of the work would have been superior to any narrative importance. With either of these functions, it would have been placed in a chapel or the altar as it would have been an object of great value. Giotto’s Betrayal of Christ, on the other hand, was located along the sides of the Arena Chapel flanking the altarpiece where it was common to find narrative scenes relating to the Passion. This image would have served a purely narrative function and while depicting a sacred event, would not have been considered a sacred object or interpreted as having a sacred intention. Though the compositions of both works are highly similar, the overall effect is entirely different.
The terms copia and variety can be explored here in the comparison of Veneziano’s painting influenced by the Greek Style and the seemingly more modernized rendition by Giotto. Copia is understood to be undisciplined and its copious nature can be found in the word itself. Copia is most obvious in Veneziano’s use of gold, but his simplified composition is much like Giotto’s, as explained previously. Variety, on the other hand, is more disciplined and regulated, it is celebrated by the use of white which offers a direct contrast to the heavily golden images in the Greek Style. It has more tonal variety and often a more simplified narrative. In this case, the image that the term copia would apply to has the more simplified narrative, exhibiting qualities of variety. A work of art does not need to embody only one quality or the other, but rather can intercede both. The use of gold makes sense in Veneziano’s case as a religious covering or part of an altarpiece, and the scene appears to be narratively clear and compositionally simple. As a fragment of a larger image, one can assume that copia is detectable in the larger image, perhaps as the use of multiple smaller narratives creates a more complex and striking composition. Both interpretations of the Betrayal of Christ share an interest in multiplicity. Veneziano’s Betrayal is assumed to be part of this composition of multiples, while Giotto’s Betrayal is part of a narrative sequence that also relies on multiplicity to translate a full story. In Giotto’s case, the variety is clear in the color scheme. There are numerous colors in this scene, and the most striking comparison between the two works are the colors of the sky: Veneziano’s gold and Giotto’s blue. The figures in the foreground are clear and distinct, and if one were familiar with the story, the scene would be immediately recognizable.
Giotto in 1305 and Veneziano in 1345 painted similar compositions but have been situated as polar opposites. There are multiple desires fueling these two works: one of which is fueled by ornament and emulation of the sacred, the other by the desire to visually translate a specific narrative, however these two works are not as contradictory as one might initially interpret. The distinction between copia and variety is muddled, and in Veneziano’s case, his work should be interpreted as a response to Giotto’s work and as a response to tradition, rather than recognized as a strict archetype of copia or of the Greek Style, because the similarities between the works are consistent enough to challenge the differences, and artistic influence is composite and inexact.
Muse & Musée 