How To Talk About Art History

It's easier than it seems.

Why was Cimabue so Important?


Maestà di Santa Trinità (1280–1285), Cimabue





The Renaissance and Giorgio Vasari

First, let’s talk about the Renaissance for a quick minute, because Cimabue’s importance hinges on our understandings of what “the Renaissance” actually is. The word “Renaissance” means rebirth. It was a period in European art history from the 14th – 17th centuries, when art was “reborn” after the Medieval period. The Renaissance was characterised by a rediscovery of Classical art and philosophy, and a move towards more naturalistic (realistic) art.  Our traditional understanding of the Renaissance is based on the idea that Classical art (from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome) was the pinnacle of artistic achievement, and that Medieval art was a dip in quality. This is, of course, based on highly subjective ideas of what “great art” is.

The Italian writer Giorgio Vasari, often called the first art historian, was the first writer to use the word “Renaissance” to describe this period in his 1550 book The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. In this book, he established and popularised the idea that Medieval art was inferior to the art of the Renaissance. He created a narrative wherein 16th century Renaissance art – that is, the art of his own time – was the culmination of a period of evolution that started in the 14th century (the “Low Renaissance”) and ended in the 16th century (the “High Renaissance”). Since he was from Florence, he also emphasised that Florentine painters were the ones who spearheaded this evolution, mostly ignoring artists from the rest of Europe and other areas of Italy.

A painting depicting a crucifix. Jesus, clad in a loose loincloth and with a halo around his head, is spread out with his arms out on the crucifix, symbolising his crucifiction.

Santa Croce Crucifix (1287 – 88), Cimabue

This narrative – based on the ideas of this one art historian – actually still forms the fundamental basis of our understanding of the Renaissance today. It’s a big reason why two of the most famous artists of all time, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, were 16th century Florentine painters. It’s also a big reason why Cimabue is considered important and, believe it or not, it’s a big reason why his infamous pride is considered to be important too.

Cimabue and Giotto di Bondone
A bright and colourful fresco depicting a scene from the Bible. Jesus, symbolised as the only figure with a golden halo, is standing in the middle of a large crowd holding wooden poles and torches, clearly angry. He is being held by another man to stop him moving.

Kiss of Judas at Scrovegni Chapel (1304–06), Giotto di Bondone

Part of Cimabue’s importance comes from the fact that he was Giotto’s teacher. Giotto di Bondone was a Florentine painter and architect who is generally considered to be the first great Renaissance painter. Giotto’s widely understood greatness comes from the fact that his art was naturalistic, moving away from the supposed awkwardness of earlier, less realistic examples of European art. His figures have been praised for having form and weight as well as realistically detailed faces and expressions. He is also known for his more realistic perspective, making use of the vanishing point. He is famous for his bright and colourful frescoes.

So Giotto is famous, and Cimabue, being his teacher, is famous through association. (Some art historians dispute the claim that Cimabue was Giotto’s teacher, by the way.) More than this, however, Cimabue plays an important art historical role in emphasising the linear evolution narrative of the Renaissance. This narrative generally starts with Giotto, in the Low Renaissance, whose work is considered to be the first step in the evolution towards High Renaissance. Cimabue is the important “transitional” step in this evolution, bridging the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

Vasari, for example, wrote that Cimabue was, “in one sense, the principal cause of the renewal of painting”. Cimabue’s art, while still influenced by the Italo-Byzantine style, was in many ways more naturalistic than other examples of Medieval art. He was also clearly an influence on many other Italian artists at the time, such as Duccio di Buoninsegna. His works are therefore said to showcase the ongoing evolution of Italian art.

Two paintings, side by side, of the Madonna on a throne with the Christ child. The painting on the left is the Cimabue painting from the very beginning of this article. The painting on the right is by Giotto. It also depicts the Madonna on a golden throne surrounded by angels, with an additional two angels kneeling at her feet. Compared to Giotto's unrealistic, Medieval-style painting, this work is more realistically painted.

Cimabue’s Madonna (left) is often compared with Giotto’s Ognissanti Madonna (c. 1310) (right) to illustrate the differences in style between the two, positioning Giotto’s work as an evolution from Giotto’s more Italo-Byzantine style.

So what does Cimabue’s alleged pride have to do with this? Well, his reported failings allow Giotto to be considered as an even greater artist. Vasari, again, greatly contributed to this idea, writing: “Giotto truly eclipsed Cimabue’s fame just as a great light eclipses a much smaller one.”

Following along with this narrative, Cimabue is sometimes depicted as a great artist who was thwarted by the immense artistic revolution caused by Giotto’s art. The poet Dante, for example, in Canto XI of his Purgatario, writes:

O vanity of human powers,
how briefly lasts the crowning green of glory,
unless an age of darkness follows!
In painting Cimabue thought he held the field
but now it’s Giotto has the cry,
so that the other’s fame is dimmed.

Here, we can see the characterisation of Cimabue as a proud man, who “thought he held the field” due to the “vanity of human powers”. It is, of course, entirely possible that Cimabue really was a proud and haughty perfectionist. His name, Cimabue, is said by some to be a nickname meaning “bull headed”. Vasari also describes how Cimabue was so proud that he would destroy his work if he found it flawed in any way, which could very well be true. This behaviour, however, can also be seen in other artists – Monet, for example – without it becoming one of their lasting legacies. I’d argue that the reason Cimabue’s alleged pride is so important in art history is that is makes Giotto’s artistic achievements even more triumphant. In many ways, the figure of Cimabue stands in for the older artistic establishment as a whole, being blindsided by this new, “reborn” art.

Cimabue and Giotto were both amazing painters, without a doubt. It’s useful, however, to remember that history is an incredibly subjective thing. Our understandings of art history will always be influenced by historians, such as Vasari, who recorded history according to their own ideas. Looking at how and why Cimabue is considered important can really illuminate this.


Why is “Tim’s Vermeer” so Controversial?


Where were all the female Abstract Expressionists?


  1. Foma

    Its great to see conversation about art history go mainstream. It is important to grapple with issues in art and culture that are long since past, but which are by no means ‘finished’ just because experts have said this or that.

    The issue of Cimabue’s pride and it’s importance reveal several interesting aspects of the transition from the Medieval period to the Renaissance.

    First, the Byzantine painting tradition that was the source of inspiration and technique of European painting in the Medieval period was for the most part anonymous. It was not that artists were completely unknown, as church and wealthy patrons had to know who they were to call upon them to produce art, but their works did not typically bear any direct acknowledgement of the artist in question – they were not ‘signed’. Quality in art was measured in skill in execution and other technical qualities, but not individual distinction of the artist. Individual ‘style,’ as we know it, was not a concept connected to the artist. The artist was an instrument of the divine, trained as such to use his talent to serve God – which meant religious art largely destined to adorn churches.

    Second, the subjects and figures in painting and sculpture were overwhelmingly religious in nature. Byzantine art – icon painting and frescoes, was a cultural institution that reflected Christian narratives, values and heroes in the same way that Greek art before it had done with their gods and goddesses. Figures in art were well known archetypes and they were ‘expressionless’ because their symbolic nature did not require particular expression for their significance to be understood by the viewers.

    Finally, it is often stated, incorrectly, that the Renaissance painters ‘invented’ perspective. The technique of rendering 3 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional plane by using one or more vanishing points was well known but not considered particularly important in the visual arts. Icons, the depictions of Christ, the Virgin and the Saints, were considered ‘timeless’ and the awkward perspective of iconography was not the result of ‘bad technique’ as is often claimed, but an intentional skewing of line and proportion to reflect the ‘otherworldly perspective’ of eternity.

    To consider the work of Cimabue in light of these long standing traditions in painting, his ‘pride’ could reasonably be construed as his willful deviation from these strongly held traditions in painting. Despite the religious subject matter of his paining, he gives expression to his subjects, more rigorous attention to proportion and accuracy in perspective, and relative animation to the figures in his paintings. In all this, he imparts an recognizable ‘style’ that, in the mind of his contemporaries, did not draw attention so much to his work, but to himself.

    Whatever biographical details exist to support Cimabue ‘pride,’ the very existence of his work as a departure from Medieval-Byzantine norms in art and social expectations for artists is much more significant evidence for his ‘pride’. Furthermore, without question, this pride was of great importance to the development of art in the Renaissance when artists to greater liberties to distinguish themselves for the sake of advancing art and their own reputation. The growing importance of ‘naturalism’ (what we call realism) in painting was not so much a recapturing of ‘lost technique’ but a humanizing and of art that had up to then been considered an almost religious calling: selfless, anonymous and for the greater public good.

    That the ‘new’ art that Cimabue, and more famously, Giotto, introduced did not clash radically with the work of their Gothic predecessors and did not create any sharp or widespread cultural controversy for several reasons. Mainly, the introduction of realism to painting by that time already had a long, however slow, tradition. Furthermore, the ideas of the Renaissance, however conveniently presented to us in the stable, empirical form of objects of art, were not at all confined to the realm of paining. The social concept that the Classical age was a ‘golden’ period of more advanced artistic, social and scientific achievements was not confined to proto-art critics such as Vasari. The ‘rediscovery’ of the Greek poets and artists, Roman science and technology (largely through the impetus of trade conducted with the Arab dominated lands of the near-east from the major trading centers of Italy) was point of departure for European culture as a whole that would provide fuel not only for the development of the visual arts, but many other aspects of European society that would impact not only the arts, but the role of artists and art in society.

    • Jessica Ni

      Thanks Foma! your comment explains well that the readers can understand the importance of his pride.

  2. Judas

    Thank you for your argumented and detailed comment, Foma. I had a great time when I was reading it .

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén