Renaissance Artists of Venice – other artists in the exhibit

Obviously, there were other artists in this exhibit then Titian, Bellini and Carpaccio. Here are three:

Bartolomeo Veneto (active from 1502-1546) worked in Venice and Lombardy. In Venice, he studied under Gentile Bellini. There is not a lot of information about his life, most being derived from signatures, dates and inscriptions on his painting. Bartolomeo’s early work were devotional paintings, but his subject matter soon changed to suit his patrons, with his portraits becoming very popular. Documents suggest Bartolomeo went to Padua in 1512 and Milan in 1520. Leonardo da Vinci had recently been to Milan, and Leonardo’s effect is evident in Bartolomeo’s developing style.

                        Portrait of a Gentleman, ca. 1520, oil on panel transferred to canvas

Vincenzo Catena (c. 1480–1531) was another artist featured in the exhibit. The earliest known record of him is in an inscription on the back of a painting by Georgione, in which he is described as the painter’s colleague. Catena’s early style is however, much closer to that of Giovanni Bellini, brother of Gentile Bellini. There are about a dozen signed paintings by Catena in existence and his will indicated he indicate that he was a man of some wealth, with friends in Venetian humanist circles.

                                        Portrait of Giambattista Memmo, circa 1510

Of these three artists, the least in known about Francesco Bissolo. He first mentioned as working in the Doge’s Palace, Venice, for a modest wage. There are many signed works, some dated, although the latest date known is 1530. His style derives from that of Giovanni Bellini, Gentile’s brother.

I want you to note something in this painting: look at the proportion of the head of the infant to the rest of the body. Many of the artists of the time painted babies as little adults. The infant head should be about one-third of the total length of the body!



9 thoughts on “Renaissance Artists of Venice – other artists in the exhibit”

  1. I wonder if artists of the time didn’t realize how large a baby’s head is in proportion to the body… When I first scrolled to the image, I knew something was off but couldn’t identify it. Then I read on and had an “aha” moment 🙂 Lovely post, Noelle ♥

    1. Thanks, Tina. It always bothered me to see babies as little adults, then I recalled my art professor telling me about that! I think these artists never looked at real babies!

    2. Funny you should ask that, Tina. I am not intimately familiar with women artists of that time so I did some digging. Here is what I found in Artcyclopedia:
      “Renaissance Europe was not a promising place for female artists to emerge. Women were expected to marry and have children, and those who did work were not welcomed into male-dominated professions. In fact women were unable to even receive formal art training (a cornerstone of which was the study of the nude).

      But some did emerge. Privately taught, often by their fathers who were drafting them into the family business, and talented enough to gain commissions on merit alone, some women successfully made a living as artists.”
      I did an admittedly brief search to see if any of them had painted babies. From what I saw, I’d say it was about 50-50. Some did actually get the head size right!

      1. Amazing… I wonder if those women who didn’t accurately paint the head weren’t emulating their male counterparts. Giving birth tends to make one pay close attention to the details! Thanks for researching this, Noelle. Much appreciated ❤

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: