Gombrich’s The Form of Movement

Gombrich’s The Form of Movement

Introduction, Thesis Statement and Purpose of the Work

Ernst Gombrich, also known as Sir Ernst Hans Josef Gombrich, is a well-known Austrian-born art historian that lived and worked in the United Kingdom. He is known for his numerous works dedicated to the subjects of cultural history and art history, including “Art and Illusion, A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation,” “The Story of Art,” and “Little History of the World.” Being a notable figure of the previous century, Gombrich devoted his life to the investigation of art in all its forms and manifestations. A separate direction of activity, however, was the studies in the art of Renaissance that were published in four different volumes: “Norm and Form,” “Symbolic Images,” “The Heritage of Apelles,” and “New Light on Old Masters.” Each of these books is laced with various details and historically proved facts that significantly contributed to the development of the study of the symbolism of the historian’s period.

Moreover, Gombrich’s work emphasizes the personality of Leonard da Vinci who is recognized as a painter, sculptor, architect, and urban planner, musician and composer, costume and stage designer, anatomist, engineer, mathematician, natural scientist, and prolific inventor at a time. In his numerous articles, books, and essays, the historian admires the wisdom and knowledge of Italian polymath as the primary figure in the history of the Renaissance period. The piece entitled “The Form of Movement in Water and Air” is one of the most prominent examples of these works. Thesis Statement: In this essay, Gombrich does not only admire the multidisciplinary activity of Leonardo da Vinci but also explains it as a specific kind of art that can be comprehended only via a sophisticated approach to every sphere of his interest. A similar idea can be met in the works of Giorgio Vasari, Peter Simpson, and authors of the “Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing: The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace,” an article that is perceived as proof to Gombrich’s opinion. .

The principle purpose of this paper is to discuss the presentation of Leonard da Vinci in Gombrich’s and other scholar’s work. It analyzes four reputable sources to define and discuss the similarities and differences in the interpretations of different authors. The primary objective of this essay, therefore, is to trace a history of some of the ways in which aspects of Leonardo’s practice and production have been characterized by a range of scholars over the last 50+ years. To succeed in this, the paper reviews Gombrich’s essay and then critically compare and contrast the ways in which the other scholars approach the same subject. First, the paper investigates Ernst Gombrich’s essay entitled “The Form of Movement in Water and Air”. It analyzes the work striving to find the answers to the next questions: “What are the major themes and ideas he is exploring?”, “How does he construct his argument(s)?”, and “In what ways do art and science intersect for Gombrich, whether in the construction of his argument(s) and/or in relation to Leonardo’s own practice and production?”. Once a clear understanding of the content of Gombrich’s essay is formulated, the paper conducts a search for more recent writing by scholars interested in the same subject. This part of the work is intended to discuss the following questions: “What has been written on the subject since the period in which Gombrich was writing?” and “More specifically, how has the subject been interpreted by scholars writing after Gombrich?”. The paper is mainly based on Gombrich’s “The Form of Movement in Water and Air” essay and three reputable sources of other authors found on the Internet. It incorporates direct and paraphrased citations that are intended to support the major claims of this essay.

Analysis of Ernst Gombrich’s “The Form of Movement in Water and Air” essay

Even though the essay is dedicated to the exploration of the studies of water conducted by Leonardo da Vinci before 1923, Gombrich does not dwell only on this objective. Rather, he strives to glorify the author’s multidimensional nature as an integral part of his personality. It is a generally acknowledged fact that the Italian polymath has been always mystically connected with the subject of water in all its forms and manifestations. He, therefore, was one of the first scientists that managed to explain the movement of water and air in the natural environment and, hence, significantly contributed to the development of knowledge in this particular area. More specifically, Leonardo da Vinci’s hypothesis about the hydrological cycle has laid the foundation for the contemporary assumptions and definitions that have been repeatedly approved by modern scientists. Gombrich’s essay of the 1976 year, therefore, strives to empathize with the achievements of Leonardo da Vinci in watery-airy movements. In fact, though, it does not only reviews the works of the polymath but also admires the rest of his personal talents and achievements that are closely tied with each other. From the very beginning of the text, Gombrich reveals his attitude and feelings towards the author of the study investigated. He asks for an apology from his readers as he might not be acknowledged enough in the sphere of science to talk about Leonardo da Vinci’s achievements in it (Gombrich, p. 39). He states that “One would have to be Leonardo to discuss anything in Leonardo – and if one were, one would probably never come to an end” (Gombrich, p. 39).  With these words, the author highlights the multidimensional interests of the Italian polymath. It becomes obvious that Gombrich deeply admires the wisdom and knowledge of Leonardo that cannot be fully comprehended by anyone but Leonardo himself. He also states that he does not want to dwell on the “universality” of the Italian polymath as the “unity of his thought” remains the major difficulty for him (Gombrich, p. 39). In such a manner, Gombrich empathizes with the fact that the key to the understanding of Leonardo’s genius and success lies in a complex approach to each of his spheres of interests. In other words, if one wants to understand something about Leonardo, they need to examine every one of his works which is unimaginable for a regular person, archivist or even scientist. Being an art historian, therefore, Gombrich recognizes his inability to comprehend the work of Leonardo in a maximally complex manner. He starts his essay with the words of glorification of the polymath’s talents that might ease the task of evaluation of his scientific work. Such a strategy confirms his previously declared assumption that the proper comprehension of Leonardo’s works demands a multidimensional approach to his knowledge.

Throughout the entire essay, Gombrich continues to empathize with the fact that the major key for the understanding of Leonardo’s works is a complex approach to every sphere of his interest. After apologizing for his possible incompetence to properly evaluate the wisdom of the Italian polymath, the author defines the most valuable of his works that (according to Gombrich’s opinion) are closely connected with each other. More specifically, he states that Leonardo’s knowledge equally applies to his studies in the spheres of painting, optics, light and shade, “geometry of equal areas in segments of circles”, astronomy, “balancing of weights” and “movement in water and air” (Gombrich, p. 39). According to Gombrich’s belief, however, the subject of the “movement in water and air” remains the primary sphere of interest throughout Leonardo’s both artistic and scientific curiosities (Gombrich, p. 39). In other words, the author assumes that water may be called the major common thread between all of the above-mentioned subjects discussed. Additionally, he argues that artistic and scientific spheres of Leonardo’s interest explain the details and can mutually complement each other. To be more specific, Gombrich notifies that historians of science provided art historians with a key to the understanding of Leonardo’s anatomical drawings (Gombrich, p. 41). In such a manner, this assumption confirms the connection between the polymath’s initial ideas. Therefore, it proves the unity of Leonardo’s thought. Consequently, these and other assumptions of Gombrich underline his initial idea that the directions discussed by the polymath are closely linked together and, therefore, require a complex approach to every one of the subjects considered.

Analysis of the Works of Other Scholars Interested in the Same Subject

Giorgio Vasari, an Italian painter, architect, writer, and historian, proves the suggestions of Gombrich in his literature work devoted to the unique talent and personality of Leonardo da Vinci. Being an influential artist of his time, Vasari spent most of his lifetime by exploring the historical details of art development that have influenced the works of his contemporary creators. Just as Gombrich, he was obsessed with the art-historical writings that were intended to shed some light on the most valuable artists and artistic genres of his time. Vasari’s major achievement is his book entitled “Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects” that is devoted to the discussion of the biographies and talents of genius painters, sculptors, and architects of the Renaissance period. One of its chapters reveals the details of Leonardo da Vinci’s life and its impact on his artistic and scientific activity. In the “Life of Leonardo da Vinci painter and sculptor of Florence” section, Vasari states that the polymath was “truly marvellous and celestial” (Vasari). Just as Gombrich, he starts his text with the words of admiration for Leonardo as a skillful and talented person that has managed to reach success in multiple separate disciplines at a time. In fact, though, Vasari does not appreciate the multidimensional interests of the polymath. According to his opinion, “in learning and in the rudiments of letters he would have made great proficiency, if he had not been so variable and unstable, for he set himself to learn many things, and then, after having begun them, abandoned them” (Vasari). With these words, the author assumes that Leonardo could have become a greater specialist if he had concentrated on only one direction. Then, Vasari turns to the detailed discussion of the talents of Leonardo as a complex mixture of his multidimensional interests. He explains that the polymath “began many things and never finished one of them, since it seemed to him that the hand was not able to attain to the perfection of art in carrying out the things which he imagined” (Vasari). As a consequence, all of the “unfinished things” of Leonardo became closely linked together supporting and strengthening the initial idea of the creator. This leads to the conclusion that Vasari considered the talents of Leonardo components of an inherent whole that needs to be examined in a complex way.

The contemporary exhibition catalogs dedicated to the talents of Leonardo reveal the details about connections between the polymath’s works in separate spheres. As these sources tend to be more focused and more sophisticated than what is typically presented in a textbook or a general survey book, they present detailed information about Leonardo’s creative and scientific activity. For instance, Peter Simpson, an art editor from Ottawa, discusses the most memorable achievements of the polymath in his essay entitled “Remembering the genius of da Vinci at Museum of Science and Technology”. The major purpose of this source is to attract the attention of publicity to Leonardo’s talents in spheres of art, science, and technology. As the exhibition presents the creations of Leonardo from various separate directions, the author cannot but empathize with the interlinkage between them. More specifically, at the beginning of the essay, Simpson states that polymath was the “staggering genius” that succeed in everything he did (Simpson). After these words, the author discusses the major achievements of Leonardo, including his creations in the sphere of painting, the invention of drills and cranes, paddle boat and the submarine, glider and a parachute, weapons, musical instruments and even dresses (Simpson). Just as Gombrich, Simpson underlines the unique combination of talents of Leonardo. In fact, though, unlike Gombrich, he has managed to explain them in a proper and more comprehensive context. More specifically, Simpson explains the diversity of Leonardo’s interest with the initial personal trait of Leonardo – the true talent of an inventor. The author assumes that he had various ideas about the ways of improving the surrounding world and did everything possible for their further implementation. Simpson’s article, therefore, provides a more comprehensive understanding of Leonardo’s interests explaining hem with the initial personal trait of Leonardo.

Another exhibition catalog devoted to Leonardo’s achievements demonstrates the specific connection between the drawings and writings of the polymath. Just as Gombrich, the author first admires the unique combination of Leonardo’s talents. Then they attempt to define specific concepts that could be useful for the understanding of his different spheres of interests. As the major purpose of this source is to advertise the exhibition, the author tries to find connections between Leonardo’s pieces of work and, therefore, form them into smaller exhibition sections. The major emphasis, however, is put on the drawings of the polymath. Unlike the rest of the sources, the article is focused on only a few spheres of Leonardo’s interest. It, therefore, does not strive to evaluate the successes or failures of the polymath. Just as Simpson, the article strives to define a common feature that connects Leonardo’s diverse works together. According to the authors of this source, the water was the primary thing that connected the vast majority of all the separate dimensions together. The movement of water, therefore, was a “symbol of natural processes”, “powerful but tractable adversary”, and “pure element” that haunted Leonardo’s work in many fields (“Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing: The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace”). These words draw a vivid connection with Gombrich’s assumption. They appear to be explicitly built on his research and analysis conducted in the late twentieth century. In such a manner, they correspond to the initial Gombrich’s suggestion about the unity of Leonardo’s thought.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the selected essays have appeared to be proper sources for the investigation of Leonardo da Vinci. The paper, therefore, has managed to analyze the presentation of Leonardo da Vinci in Gombrich and other scholars’ works defining and discussing the similarities and differences in the interpretations of different authors. It has fulfilled the primary objective of this essay that was to trace a history of some of the ways in which aspects of Leonardo’s practice and production have been characterized by a range of scholars over the last 50+ years. During the examination, it was revealed that Gombrich’s “The Form of Movement in Water and Air” essay does not only explores the studies of water conducted by Leonardo da Vinci before 1923 but also strives to glorify the author’s multidimensional nature as an integral part of his personality. Despite the fact that some scholars, in particular, Giorgio Vasari, did not appreciate the multidimensional interests of the polymath, the vast majority of contemporary specialists admire the multidimensional talents of Leonardo. The assumptions of some of the contemporary authors appear to be explicitly built on Gombrich’s research and analysis conducted in the late twentieth century. Just as Gombrich, modern scholars recognize the genius of the polymath as components of an inherent whole that needs to be examined in a complex way. This leads to the conclusion that the multidisciplinary activity of Leonardo da Vinci should be perceived as a specific kind of art that can be comprehended only via a complex approach to every sphere of his interest.

Works Cited

Gombrich, Ernst. The Heritage of Apelles: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, “The Form of Movement in Water and Air”. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1976.

“Leonardo da Vinci: A Life in Drawing: The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace”. The Queen’s Gallery Official Website ,2019, https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/leonardo-da-vinci-a-life-in-drawing/the-queens-gallery-buckingham/the-exhibition. Accessed 12 March 2020.

Simpson, Peter. “Remembering the genius of da Vinci at Museum of Science and Technology”. ARTSFILE, 2019, https://artsfile.ca/remembering-the-genius-of-da-vinci-at-museum-of-science-and-technology/. Accessed 12 March 2020.

Vasari, Giorgio. “Life of Leonardo da Vinci painter and sculptor of Florence”. Excerpts from Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, translated by Gaston DeC. De Vere, (London: Philip Lee Warner, 1912-1914).