Parmigianino at The Frick Collection

Gabriel de Saint-Aubin (1724-1780), Sheet of Studies Including a Portrait of Mademoiselle Clairon, 1773, Black chalk, brush and colored washes, 22.9 x 16.8 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris, Département des Arts graphiques, Livre des Saint-Aubin, fol. 21

Parmigianino, Antea (1524-1527), oil on canvas, 54″ x 34″; courtesy The Frick Collection

* * *

Parmigianino’s Antea: A Beautiful Artifice, an exhibition at the Frick Collection, poses an interesting question: Is it more challenging to view a show dedicated to a single work of art, or one featuring several?

A comprehensive exhibition demands concentration predicated, in part, on sheer numbers. The viewer enjoys (or contends with) breadth and context. But an exhibition featuring a single work demands a different kind of attention.

Most of us engage with a work of art on public view for a matter of seconds or minutes. This runs contrary to the notion that art reveals itself more the longer a viewer spends with it.  A Beautiful Artifice insists on that well-founded cliché. Antea (c. 1531-34), a painting by the Italian Mannerist painter Parmigianino (1503-1540), is the show’s only painting.

Is the striking young woman in Antea based on an actual person or is she, as the exhibition title suggests, an artifice? In her exhaustive and absorbing catalog essay, curator Christina Neilson doggedly pursues the painting’s history. She’s a thorough detective who relishes mystery, but not at the expense of art. Even as she digs for facts, Ms. Neilson bolsters the painting’s seductive and inscrutable allure.

Antea belongs to a select group of art historical women whose fascination lies in their resistance to interpretation. There’s Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, of course, but also Petrus Christus’ Portrait of a Young Woman, Vermeer’s Head of a Girl and Raphael’s La Fornarina (the subject of another single-painting Frick exhibition a few years back). Like any good artist, Parmigianino sacrificed control in deference to the painting’s independence. At a certain point, we stop talking about art. Antea becomes a living presence.

The earliest reference to Antea came over a hundred years after Parmigianino laid down the last brush stroke, and identifies her as the artist’s inamorata. Other sources list her as an aristocrat or a bride or a whore—whichever way, she was classy. Was Antea Parmigianino’s daughter, mistress, servant or an advertisement for chastity?

Ms. Neilson considers the symbolic heft of Antea’s raiment. The marten fur she wears connotes fertility and so appears to endorse matrimony. Rubies were viewed as a conduit to the heart and soul; using this logic, Antea’s ring is another vote for marriage. Antea’s apron? It was high fashion. Her name? Through a circuitous route back to Aphrodite, “Antea” led to theories about her being a prostitute. Ms. Neilson elaborates, cites historical data and dismisses these notions. The painting is the thing.

Against a deep, burnished green, Antea faces us with tight-lipped self-possession. Her eyes are large and open wide; they’re somewhat accusatory, but not without innocence. There’s a slight blush to her cheeks.

Antea’s bare left hand fingers her necklace absent-mindedly. Her gloved right hand, pinky finger slightly extended, holds the other glove. The slight blur of her skirt suggests movement.

Erotic intent is inescapable. Antea’s left breast presses against her gold and shimmering dress, an attribute gently emphasized by the lift of her hand. Antea’s intense expression conveys longing—this is a sternly sexual painting.

Distortion of form was an essential element of Mannerism. Parmigianino’s best-known painting, Madonna of the Long Neck (c. 1534-39), is aptly titled.Antea is nowhere near as extreme, but stay with the painting—it’s an amalgam of softly stated, snakelike tics. Her arms aren’t quite connected to her body. The waistline is too high. The eyes are enlarged and saucerlike. Antea is an exquisitely furtive investigation of style for its own sake.

Artistic precedents complicate the painting’s fetching enigma. Parmigianino may have been familiar with Raphael’s La Fornarina—appropriately enough for a painter nicknamed “Raphael redivivus (revived).” Ms. Neilson glances upon Ghirlandaio, Botticelli and Titian as comparisons, but the most fascinating comparison is to Parmigianino himself.

Antea bears no small resemblance to the girl seen staring directly at us inMadonna of the Long Neck; perched behind the Virgin’s right shoulder, her unnerving gaze, expansive eyes and oval head are one and the same. Just as intriguing is a drawing of a young man, done in pen and brown ink. Other than a shift of the eyes and a more rounded nose, it is Antea.

Ms. Neilson discusses the role of androgyny in 16th-century art, aesthetics and manners. Grazia (grace) and leggiadria (elegance), she notes, applied primarily to male courtesans, but were equally applicable to women. For example, the art theorist Lodovico Dolce, Parmigianino’s contemporary, wrote, “The woman should have something of the man in her, and in the man something of the beautiful woman.”

Parmigianino’s “gender trespassing” is a contemporary aside that Ms. Neilson skillfully employs to argue that Antea is an ideal—that is to say, a beautiful abstraction. She goes on to wonder how we could desire a calculated invention. It’s a no-brainer, really. Antea is a riddle, sure, and a deceit, but it is, above all, magic. That is, after all, why we fall in love.

© 2008 Mario Naves

Originally published in the February 26, 2008 edition of The New York Observer.

 

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: