Clarified, or at least I see the differences in our terminology clarified. Mike's figures do still seem a bit funky: the up-and-down proportions are on, sure, but how did he figure distance nipple-to-nipple or width of shoulders? They didn't have real live realistic superheroes in the 16th c. But I'm not sure I believe in a hard line between realistic and stylized, so shrug.
Yes, it's more of a gradation from realism to stylization, rather than a hard line. That said, in my opinion the instant the artist depicts a pose that is impossible for the human body to perform, or elongates or squashes the proportions beyond their physiological capacity, realism has taken a back to seat to stylization and expressionism.
As to the question of horizontal proportion, in the Sistine Chapel frescoes Michelangelo employs the classical "idealistic" 2 1/3 ratio (IE, 2 1/3 head-widths = shoulder-to-shoulder width). This is based on Greco-Roman standards for heroic sculpture, which M. does not exaggerate or stylize, despite what your eye may be telling you owing to the massive weight of his Sistine Chapel figures.
And I really don't think I actually believe in Mannerism (how many Mannerist artists, say, really attenuated their figures that much, other than Parmagianino? (I'd say he goes "up" in the same way that M goes "out"-- even Pontormo's figures aren't beyond the pale).
Other Mannerists with "attenuated" (I prefer "elongated") figures: El Greco in oils on canvas (qv The Burial of Count Orgaz; Fray Hortensio). Pilon in bronze relief (qv Descent from the Cross). Goujon in marble reliefs (qv Nymphs). Clouet in tempera and oil (qv Francis I). And as you've mentioned, Pontormo, whose color pallette and rendering of skin and fabric textures are closest to Michelangelo's (qv Pontormo's Deposition; Madonna & Child w/ 2 Angels).
All of the above works, and others by the same artists, depict elongated, delicate figures who show little emotion, in exaggerated or abstracted light (in the paintings) and often surrounded by decorative and busy backgrounds, or are otherwise filled with busy and decorative detail.
Michelangelo, on the other hand, painted passionate, sometimes fiercely emotional figures with precise proportions and naturalistic lighting, against blank or flat backgrounds and with stark, "simplistic" (as opposed to decorative or complex) details.
What Michelangelo does share with Mannerism is his posing of figures into obviously artificial -- that is, non-naturalistic -- poses, especially in the Last Judgment fresco, in order to convey character and motivations. This feature of M.'s inestimably influential work the Mannerists did adopt, but this single shared characteristic does not mean that M. himself was a Mannerist.
Is Bronzino's color and lighting really all that odd? I think the definitions of 16th-c Italy mannerism depend on, oh, 2 or 3 canonical works, and everything else seems to be an exception in some way or another (a problem you run into when you teach a course that strays from those 3 canonical objects. "What do Baccio Bandinelli and Rosso and Vasari have in common?" "Um. . ."). If there is such a thing as Mannerism, IMO, FWIW, Mike is the first to really show most of its textbook features-- virtuoso poses, strange figure types, colore cangiante, etc etc.
Oh, and cheers, fellow art dweebs. Not many around here. . .
Cheers right back at ya. I appreciate the chance to review my art books and compare styles and works which I've not examined for many years.
Among Mannerists, Bronzino's color and lighting are uncharacteristically naturalistic, even muted, closer to Leonardo than to Michelangelo. Where B. is undeniably a Mannerist (IMO) is in the complex and overcrowded arrangement of figures and details (qv Descent of Christ to Limbo; Triumph of Venus), in the placated emotions of the figures, and in their artificial posing to convey character. Bronzino is further not beholden to precise classical proportion as M. is; in the named paintings above, B. elongates hands and arms, and shrinks heads -- another Mannerist quality.
Every artist is an individual, and no two artists, even within a school which shares a written manifesto, will share in all of the same elements of the school group, to the exclusion of other influences. Schools of art are helpful toward understanding what style, influences, time period and culture the artist was working with or in. They are not meant o be hard, inflexible rules.
Mannerism overlaps with High Renaissance and Baroque, and artists from all three "schools" share certain elements in common (lifelike realism of light, anatomy and perspective, adherence to Classical ideals, etc.) but all also have their unique features which few or no other schools share.
