The Relationship Between Physiognomy and Caricature: the Contribution of Physiognomy to Della Portas Work - Essay Example

Introduction The science of physiognomy, according to “the Swiss minister Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801)” helped “read the internal from the external”1 thereby providing insights into the nature of human beings from the facial features and expression, as well as from their correct illustration. The development of caricature art which highlights prominent facial characteristics, is associated with the discipline of physiognomy. Giovan Battista Della Porta sought immortal glory through his intellectual creations, using “humanistic techniques of self-representation” and was known as “the greatest natural scientist of his age”2 during his time. Della Porta’s creations which largely sought to humourously portray the resemblance between contemporary noblemen and other public figures with different animals and birds, was based on human physiognomy. His work can be interpreted predominantly as a means to publicise himself among his contemporaries, scholars, and noblemen3. The ancient discipline of physiognomy, or the interpretation of character from external appearances, increased in popularity and significance with the publication in 1775 of Lavater’s Physiognomische Fragmente, 1772, on the theory of physiognomy. Lavater “proposed a method for assessing and classifying people’s personalities on the basis of their facial features”4. Lavater has immense faith in the truth of physiognomy; and believes that all countenances, forms and species of living beings differ from one another not only on the basis of their “classes, races, and kinds, but are also individually distinct”5. Della Porta asserted that a very fine line existed between man and animal. According to him, man’s features resembled those of an animal based on mood, character, expression, and other elements. Della Porta believed in a strong bond uniting the features of all the elements of the universe, including man with animal, and man with plants and the heavenly bodies6. On the contrary, it is one’s personal perception that as compared to the works of Della Porta, artist Annibale Carracci’s caricatures, and Leonardo da Vinci’s grotesque heads reveal the elements of caricature and an understanding of physiognomy, to a greater extent. The creations of Albrecht Durer, Johann Caspar Lavater, and Sir Thomas Browne also demonstrate a close association with the characteristics of caricature art. Similarly, one personally endorses Sandra Cheng’s concepts on monstrous caricatures, which also appear as more relevant to the discipline of physiognomy, as compared to Della Porta’s caricatures. Thesis Statement: The basic thesis of this paper is that the caricature works of Della Porta are surpassed by the other artists such as Carracci, Da Vinci, Durer, Lavater, Browne, Cheng, and others, in terms of reflecting the characteristics of caricature art, as well as in depicting an understanding of the displine of Physiognomy. The argument will be based on physiognomy and caricature development in Europe between 1500-1750. The Contribution of Physiognomy in the Development of Caricature Between 1500-1750 in Europe Tracing European visual culture from the perspective of physiognomy, Porter (2005) states that the first printed versions of medieval physiognomy emerged in the 1470s. The context of physiognomy in relation to the art discipline of caricature gradually increased in popularity, and by the 1770s with the appearance of Johann Caspar Lavater’s treatise Physiognomische Fragmente, the impact of physiognomy on European thought was immense. The early modern phenomenon of physiognomy developed from ancient, Islamic, and medieval forms of the discipline. However, an integration of physiognomy with medicine characterised late medieval learned physiognomy7. Matin Porter’s narrative on the development of caricature ends with 1780; however, the ‘golden age’ of the discipline spanned the period 1759-18388. Visual satirical forms particularly those created by hand as single-sheet caricatures, developed further in the latter half of the 18th century, to achieve great dimensions in its repertoire as well as in the extent of its influence and magnitude of output9. Further considerable expansion in caricature art during the turn of the 18th-19th century, has been recorded by political historians. The great extent to which caricatures were created during this period gave it the term ‘golden age’. This era was also of great significance to art historians, and scholars from fields such as literature and history10. Comparing Della Porta’s caricature work to that of other scholars, this paper will successfully establish that the latters’ works are more relevant to the principles of physiognomy. Giovan Battista Della Porta’s Caricatures in Relation to Physiognomy Della Porta’s (1535-1615) work De humana physiognomia, 1586, compiled the opinions and theories of earlier authorities in the discipline of physiognomy. Della Porta’s technique of emphasizing and highlighting facial features of himself and others through his illustrations formed the basis of his entire career as a natural philosopher. The whole of his professional life was devoted to creating immense studies of human physiognomy, which is the science that identifies individuals’ honourable qualities and “moral character from their countenance and physical bearing”11. Physiognomy was considered as an occult science “which sought to discover and bring out into the open the secret, inner nature and character of things from their surface appearances”12. Della Porta’s expressions on physiognomy are directed by his desire to publicize his own self (Fig.1), his close family, his humanist contemporaries and noblemen who may patronise his art. He commemorates them through two major techniques; by creating engravings and graphic portraits of them, and by recording their physical appearance in the text in the form of literary portraits13. Della Porta invariably complimented and acknowledged the original owner of a portrait, when he revealed its source. Several of his portraits originated from statues in his brother’s or uncle’s collections. With Della Porta’s reproduction of a statue of Plato (Fig.2) from his brother’s museum, he praised his brother as the “most diligent explorer and conservator of antiquities”14. Similarly, he expressed his appreciation for his uncle, describing him as a knowledgeable connoisseur of antiquities. Further examples of Della Porta’s portraits of men’s countenances reflecting the features of animals and birds, as found in De humana physiognomonia are seen in Figs. 3 and 4. Some of the portraits in Della Porta’s gallery appearing in his book De humana physiognomonia are represented in Figs.1 to 4. This commemoration of the scholar’s “noble contemporaries and men of letters”15 has been termed as the ‘courtly ethos of display’. This is in alignment with the distinguishing features of early modern scientific culture which delineated the role of the scientist. “The De humana physiognomonia, with its gallery of princely portraits”16 present descriptions of the countenances of eminent members of most of the high ranking noble families of Italy. These illustrations demonstrating comparisons of the noble men’s portraits with animals and birds, support the conceptualization of Della Porta as a late Renaissance writer on natural science. Annibale Carracci’s Caricature in Relation to Physiognomy English caricature can be traced back to its Italian roots17. Annibale Carracci (1560-1609) is considered as the inventor of the genre; with progressive enhancement in sketching skills, his work formed the autonomous art discipline of ‘caricature’. It was regarded as the “prime foundation for the modern tradition of caricature with a focus on the deformed representation of a specific individual”18. A successful caricature delicately balanced actual resemblance with abstraction, ensuring the recognizability of a figure while distorting and emphasizing the prominent features19. In the art works known as Le Arti di Bologna or ‘Trades of Bologna’ in 1646, Annibale Carracci, the Italian baroque painter, created drawings termed as Diverse Figure of labourers of various trades. He presented them in idealized forms, sometimes with deformities resulting from their work20 (Fig.5). “Carracci’s invention of caricature grew out of the practice of idealization, reshaping a portrait towards grotesque rather than ideal form”21. Based on the artist’s incorporation of physiognomy and characterization into his depictions of labourers, he was considered by Massani, a Roman art expert, as “a perfect connoisseur of nature’s intentions”22. Besides Annibale Carracci’s work in several other genres such as painting in baroque style, the artist created sheets of caricatures sketched with pen and ink, in a humourous vein (Figs.6 and 7). The faces are represented with a comical emphasis on key identifying features of various individuals. Carracci’s sheets of caricatures reflect his witty ideas and appear to joke in a playful manner. The sketches are found to be rapidly executed in pen and ink, combining serious themes with light and humourous subjects. These witty representations were also used by Annibale Caracci in the Caracci Academy for teaching the students on the discipline of caricature drawings, represented through “light-hearted, yet academic, graphic demonstrations”23. The caricature work of his brother Agostino Carracci (1557-1602) was similar to that of Annibale’s. Most of Annibale’s and Agostino’s caricatures appear in profile (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8a and 8b), with only a few heads drawn in frontal view “with dense patterns of cross-hatching”; while in the side views “merely trace the contours of the face”24. They are considered as ‘loaded portraits’, composed of a series of thin lines forming each feature. The Carraccis’ distinctively created reductive or minimalising characteristic of caricature art has been referred to as “created with two lines”25. Thus, the three Carracci artists consisting of Annibale, his brother Agostino and cousin Ludovico implemented a stylistic reform, in their Accademia degli Incamminati founded in circa 158226. This 17th century reform in painting was significantly composed of “pictorial riddles and caricatures found in the graphic oeuvre of both Annibale and Agostino”27 rather than mere doodles or games. In their paintings, Annibale and Agostino’s flexible line between invention and imitation reflected the Carraccis’ perspectives and their integration of nature with earlier artists’ styles. Their eclectic style constructively adapted different artistic conventions28, along with physiognomy. The pictorial games formed the basis for the invention of ‘caricature’ or “humourous drawings exaggerating an individual’s physiognomy through a distortion of forms”29 (Figs.6 and 7). In the Carracci Academy, the caricatures were vital tools employed as riddles for students, who were asked to go and locate the individuals depicted in the drawings30. Further, Annibale Carracci had the unique capacity to represent the essence of a whole person or scene with a minimal number of lines, thereby producing a strikingly recognisable image, without emphasizing natural defects31. The Carracci caricatures emerged in the early 1580s, several years prior to the Carraccis’ final departure to Rome, where they were called by Cardinal Odoardo Farnese32. Agostino Carracci’s caricature sheet dated 1594 (Fig.8) depicts the two brothers’ “enduring interest in the playful drawings”33. Some caricatures are found to recur in several works of Annibale and Agostino, thereby indicating a stylistic dialogue between the two artists. Similarly, the brothers may have collaborated on some of the same sheets, explaining “some of the stylistic discrepancies in the drawings that have caused so much disagreement among scholars”34 regarding the actual artist to have created the work. A large volume of caricatures created by Annibale Carracci became a part of the collections of notable art enthusiasts. This popularity of what was considered as ‘low art’ is of great significance, with their caricatures valued not only as a new form of invention, but also as a “demonstration of disegno”35 or skill in designing. The Carracci brothers’ experimentation with different types of facial deformity is similar to Leonardo da Vinci’s orientation towards the grotesque in his depiction of physiognomy. However, the fluid and rapid style of Carraccis’ sketches are considerably different from Leonardo da Vinci’s precise draftsmanship and scientific perspective that the artist imbued to the elements of each figure’s countenance and facial expression36. Physiognomy and Caricature in Leonardo da Vinci’s Grotesque Heads The Italian origins of caricature as an art form, developed by Annibale Carracci, was earlier seen in the work of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), representing humans in grotesque and humourous forms (Figs.9, 10, 11 and 12). Although the elements of portraiture and caricature had not merged together, Leonardo began adapting his principles of drawing in the direction of caricature as early as 147837. Unlike Della Porta, Lavater, Carracci and others, Leonardo dismissed physiognomy as well as chiromancy or palmistry used for predicting the future from the lines on an individual’s palm, as fallacies or misleading beliefs38. This is reiterated by Martin Kemp, who adds that Leonardo da Vinci however “willingly subscribed to the view that the signs of faces show in part the nature of the men, their vices and their complexions”39 or dispositions. Leonardo da Vinci’s caricatures with their multiple deformities, particularly the grotesque heads composed by him cannot be categorised in separate groups. Most of the grotesque heads are “inventions of Leonardo’s experiments in the distortion or exaggeration of particular parts”40. The author Michael Kwakkelstein reveals that Leonardo da Vinci’s depiction of human countenance and features in an ugly, exaggerated manner is closely associated with his focus on the art theory of expressiveness possessed by painted figures. In his caricatures, Thus, Leonardo da Vinci demonstrated emotions and mental states through movements of the face and body, as well as by reflecting character through appropriate external appearance41. Leonardo da Vinci considered the wrinkles caused by common facial expressions, as expressive of character. Art historians have taken this factor into consideration while investigating “the possible meanings of Leonardo’s drawings of so-called grotesque heads”42. Although this implies Leonardo’s inclination to read human character only from facial lines, “this interpretation does not explain his specific interest in the morphology of the human head, manifest in his many drawings of various facial types”43. Early treatises on physiognomy stated that the soul and the body interact with each other; hence with any transformation in the character of the soul, there is subsequent change in the form of the body. This was believed to take place in the converse process also44. On this basis, later writers on physiognomics justified the establishing of a science of physiognomics. The medical theory of the humours explained the relation of bodily characteristics to mental state. Thus, since the time of “classical antiquity, it was generally accepted that the blending or krasis of the humours determined the specific physical and mental disposition, known as complexio”45. The treatises on physiognomics did not provide any biological explanations for psychological and physiological characteristics; and this methodological weakness of physiognomy is the reason for Leonardo’s denying its scientific foundation. Despite Leonardo’s disapproval of the “unfounded determinism of physiognomics”46, his theory of expression was informed by the initial concept of physiognomy. The widely established norm of painters depicting themselves in their figures was explained by auto-mimesis, in which “Leonardo was convinced that the soul, maestra del tuo corpo, determined the typical form of individual physical characteristics”47. As a result, from the appearance of some of the figures painted by artists with whom he was personally acquainted, Leonardo acquired insights into their character. Hence, if the painter unaware of this tendency, proceeded to repeat his own type of work, “painting could never attain Leonardo’s ideal of faithfully imitating the endless variety in nature”48. Further, Leonardo’s notes indicate that he based his work on his theory of complexions related to the central theory of medieval medicine, The qualities related to complexion, colour and physiognomy was considered to be dependent on a person’s characteristics, based on whether they were “sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic or melancholic”49, at a particular time. The recognition of temperaments from physical appearance required the knowledge of complexion theory and also the principles of physiognomics or the nature of individuals. After understanding the four complexions, the sanguine, the phlegmatic, the choleric, and the melancholic, it is required that the complexion of each individual is explained, and the nature of every person by their external appearance has to be understood50. From Leonardo’s own observations and his knowledge of the theory of complexions, he stressed on the importance of truthfulness in depicting an individual’s characteristics51. For the artist, truthfulness “truthfulness, particularly with regard to facial physiognomy, should take account of age, type of complexion and prevailing disposition”52. Further, Leonardo opposed an uniformity of facial type, which reminded him of the same figure being depicted on several stamps. Hence, he considered it important for an artist to portray a diversity of complexions and faces, to augment with greater realism, the expressiveness of the figures he illustrated53. Albrecht Durer’s Contributions to the Discipline of Caricature Art The German artist, Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), created and exploited self portraits of himself for personally beneficial outcomes, beginning in the late fifteenth century. Through his self-portraits, the artist proclaimed “his marriage eligibility, his socialposition, his artistic achievement, and his near divinity”54. It is believed that Durer’s attempts to create art works generally flattering the multiple aspects of his personality “indicates not only his self-propagandist cleverness, but may also reveal an identity crisis”55. Hence, it is considered probable that Albrecht Durer undertook therapeutic self-exploration and analysis through self-portraiture. In Fig.13, completed in 1500, Durer’s dress with a fur collar conveys his high status in society. Self-portraits serve as self advertisements as well means to self discovery. Significantly, the potential long lasting existence of a self portrait and its possibility of outlasting the artist who creates it, incorporates it with documentary power56. Albrecht Durer, the supreme master of the woodcut, was also a painter and art theorist, besides having considerable skills in engraving and draftsmanship. It is considered possible that he had invented etching, and was one of the first artists to practice the technique57. He was also believed to be a great intellectual among artists, who had been a part of the “intellectual paradigm shift similar to the Italian Renaissance, which took place in northern Europe58. Johan Caspar Lavater’s Perspectives on Physiognomy “For Lavater, analysis of his own physiognomy involved far more than an objective practice of the science of physiognomy”59. He perceived the face as a manifestation of moral and spiritual truth, portraying distance or closeness to the divine ideal. The fundamental Christological beliefs of Lavater and his focus on the form of matter explain the basic significance to him of physiognomy and its importance in a moral, and spiritual universe. “As an image of God, his face and its graphic representations were of importance in the communication of information about oneself”60. Lavater believed that the divine essence and the physical were connected, and according to him, physiognomy as a science would promote truth and love among people, in place of artifice and pretension. The artist himself did not support a universal system, nor did he promote the work of the physiognomiste philosophe as either simple or easy. The physical being and its representations were highly important for him61. One of the key principles “of the ancient pseudoscience of physiognomy is the belief that the true inner character or self is revealed on the visible face and body”62. Physiognomy is the art of judging character and nature from the facial features or the form and lines of the body (Fig.14). Though physiognomy is deeply embedded in western culture, its greatest influence occurred towards the end of the 18th century, from the work of the Swiss pastor Johan Caspar Lavater. The man of religion considered each human being to be a unitary self, therefore visible external appearance and inner moral character were one. Lavater’s method, first published in 1775, was to develop a visual record of the distinctive characteristics of each individual, a method improved by the art of engraving. Another technique was the silhouette, which Lavater preferred because the silhouette (Fig.15) reproduced in stark outline the vital elements of the individual as indicated on the person’s face. Lavater also favoured the dead because of the unique expression assumed by the face, free from life’s influences. Lavater helped develop trained observers who “through the adoption of the principles of physiognomy, became skilled in the interpretation of human character”63. The two key sources from which John Caspar Lavater found support for his theory of physiognomy was the works of Giam Battista della Porta, and that of Sir Thomas Browne, the medical practitioner and philosopher. Browne’s book Religio Medici, 1642, examines the likelihood of the “discernment of inner qualities from the outer appearance of the face”, which helped even those who were unlettered, to read an individual’s nature from the mystical characters in the face which convey the soul of the individual. Sir Thomas Browne Theories on Physiognomy and Caricature Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682), the English physician, writer and religious philosopher “is credited with the first use of the word ‘caricature’ in the English language”, which is related to the pseudo-science of physiognomy “attempting to entrench itself through illustrative means”64. Sir Thomas Browne was familiar with the writings of the Italian artist Gian Battista della Porta. In his work Of Celestial Physiognomy, 1601, Della Porta argued that it is not the stars, but an individual’s temperament that influences the various elements of facial appearance and character. In Della Porta’s book De humana physiognomia, 1586, he indicated the similarity between animal and human characteristics, using woodcuts of animals. Thus, both Sir Thomas Browne and Gian Battista della Porta shared a sustained belief in the doctrine of signatures, or the conviction that “the physical structures of nature such as plants’ roots, stem, and flower, were indicative keys or signatures to their medicinal potentials”65. In the early 16th century, the eminent inventor, scientist and artist, Leonardo da Vinci, was also a keen supporter of physiognomy. Late in his life, in Sir Thomas Browne’s book Christian Morals, 1675, he affirmed his convictions related to the discipline of physiognomy, stating that language spoken by the brow, the eyes, nose, and the countenace should be observed, because they express the condition of the heart and its inclinations. “Men do act those Creatures whose constitution, parts, and complexion do most predominate in their mixtures”66. This concept is found to support the theory of physiognomy, to indicate that “provincial faces, national lips and noses testify not only the natures of those countries, but of those who have them elsewhere”67. Related to Leonardo da Vinci’s likening of human features to those of animals, plants, and the cosmos, Sir Thomas Browne held the belief that a phytognomy or physiognomy existed not only of men, but of plants and vegetables, and in each being there are outward signs that reveal their inner condition68. Browne explains that in each of God’s creation, He has left an inscription composed of “several forms, constitutions, parts and operations”69, which combine to form an expression of their natures. Guercino is the better known name of Giovanni Francesco Barberi (1591-1666), whose drawings expressed a sense of play. His work was similar to that of Leonardo da Vinci, with images of monsters which were unusually composed as compared to those of the Renaissance and Baroque periods70. Guercino’s hybrid monsters (Figs.16a and 16b) “combines playful and grotesque elements to produce a comical image”71. In Fig. 16a, the two-legged bird creature with a “doglike head, whiskers, small wings, chicken feet, and a human foot in place of a tail” indicates an integration of several diverse parts of various animals, birds and humans, and appears more amusing than fearsome. According to Sandra Cheng, Guercino’s ‘bird’ reveals artistic inventiveness rather than whimsy; and it reflects “Nature’s ingenuity in her ability to create monsters”72. In Fig.16b, the human head with protruding eyes appears grotesque due to the prominence given to the eyes, which were considered to be a key aspect in creating unique expressions. Sandra Cheng’s Views on Physiognomy’s Role in Caricature Art According to Sandra Cheng, art historian, caricature developed from the spirit of play or lusus, which imbued it with “humour, its graphic form, and its manipulation of cultural constructions of ugliness”73. Early modern caricature which originated from Italy revealed deformed and misshapen subjects which catered to a fascination for monstrous and rare beings. A combination of several factors such as increased appreciation for drawings, everyday topics, and the trend for paradoxical humour contributed to the emergence and evolution of caricature in early modern Italy. This style also found in literary, theatrical and scientific fields of the time which tended towards the burlesque and the ludic74. Physiognomy as the outer manifestation of the inner condition, and the dynamics between the exterior and the interior can help to examine monstrosity, anatomical abnormalities and grotesqueness in caricatures. Besides reflecting contemporary aesthetic issues, the creation as well as viewing of caricatures “drew heavily on cultural notions of monstrosity in the sciences”75. Physiognomy literature associated physical appearance with character, taking into account facial and bodily traits. At the same time, medical treatises considered the body in relation to its internal structure and composition. The medical study of abnormal development evolved from the period’s considerable interest in physical aberrance. This was the emergence of teratology, fuelling the “publication of several well-known monster histories by Fortunio Liceti (1577-1657) and Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605). The depiction of monsters changed from “freakish omen to marvelous creature of nature”, and “caricature flourished within an atmosphere that increasingly privileged the monster”76. In medieval times, illustrations of monsters held moral significance, and when adjacent to religious text, they represented the tension between the sacred and the profane. The abundance of monstrous imagery in several medieval churches and on the borders of manuscripts were believed to be “constant reminders of God’s wrath”77. The Renaissance revival of the ancient study of physiognomy contributed to the emergence of caricature. Physiognomic treatises are compared to caricatures because both disciplines deal with a “shared reliance on facial features”, with physiognomy based on “a relationship between character and appearance”78. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the relationship between physiognomy and caricature. It has examined the contribution of physiognomy to Della Porta’s work, as well as those of other artists such as Da Vinci, Carracci, Durer, Guercino, and others. It is argued that rather than Della Porta’s caricatures of animal figures in place of human faces depicting the discipline of physiognomy, the other artists have incorporated the pseudo-science of physiognomy more effectively in their works. Della Porta’s physiognomy distorted human features to make them resemble animals. The earliest inventors of caricature were the Carracci brothers. The work of Annibale and Agostino represented caricature at its best; they did not emphasize natural deformities, but exaggerated the deformities caused by labour among tradesmen. Similarly, they created caricature sheets filled with human faces emphasising the key features of their face. Annibale Carracci’s unique capacity in caricature art was his ability to represent the whole person or scene with a minimal number of lines producing a striking resemblance to the original person being illustrated. Guercino is believed to have learned the practice of caricature composition from the Carraccis. Thus, emerging as a pictorial genre in the sixteenth century, caricature progressed to the depiction of social satire. Similar to the work of Leonardo da Vinci and Agostino Carracci, Guercino composed unusual creatures different from the traditional representation of monster images of the time. However, Guercino’s creatures were unusual but pleasant to look at, whereas Da Vinci’s and Agostino Carracci’s were monstrous depictions of human countenances. Durer is found to have focused on self-portraits, presenting himself as of a high status, and with a multitude of good characteristics. Lavater’s emphasis on the facial features being a reflection of the inner self is found in several of his portraits. The theory of Sir Thomas Browne and the perspectives of Sandra Cheng validate the personal viewpoint held, that the inner characteristics are portrayed in the caricatures of Da Vinci, and the other artists. It is concluded that Della Porta’s animal faces replacing those of humans cannot comply with the principles in the theory of physiognomy. ILLUSTRATIONS Fig.1. Giovan Battista Della Porta’s Portrait in De humana physiognomonia libri IIII, 158679 Fig.2. Plato’s Portrait on Lower Half of Page Shown Below, in Giovan Battista Della Porta’s De humana physiognomonia (1586)80 Fig.3. Della Porta’s Portrayal of Similarities Between Man and Animal81 Fig.4 Della Porta’s Depiction of Similar Facial Features of Man and Bird82 Fig.5. Annibale Carracci’s Le Arti de Bologna: Diverse Figure, 1580s-1590s83 Fig.6. Annibale Carracci: Sheet of Caricatures, 1560-160984 Fig.7. Annibale Carracci: Sheet of Caricatures of Famous Contemporary Artists, 1560-160985 Fig.8.a. Agostino Carracci’s Sheet of Caricatures, 159486 Fig.8.b. Agostino Carracci: Studies of Grotesques, 1590-159587 Fig.9. Leonardo da Vinci: A Grotesque Head, 150288 Fig.10 Leonardo da Vinci: Grotesque Heads, 1502-150489 Fig.11. Leonardo da Vinci: A Grotesque Head, 1502-150490 Fig.12. Leonardo da Vinci: A Grotesque Head, 1502-150491 Fig.13 Albrecht Durer: Self-Portrait at 28, 150092 Fig.14. August Friedrich Oelenhainz: Portrait of Johann Caspar Lavater93 Physiognomy and Understanding the Inner Self from the Countenance PHyPPPh Fig.15. Lavater: Silhouettes in Physiognomische Fragmente, 1783-178794 Fig.16.a. Guercino: Grotesque Creature Fig.16.b. Guercino: Grotesque Head with Protruding Eyes Bibliography Auwera, J.V. (2007). Rubens: A genius at work: The works of Peter Paul Rubens in the royal museums of fine arts of Belgium reconsidered. Belgium: Lannoo Uitgeverij. Cheng, S. (2002). The cult of the monstrous: Caricature, physiognomy, and monsters in early modern Italy. Preternature, 1 (2), pp.197-231. Couser, T. and Fichtelberg, J. (1998). True relations: Essays on autobiography and the postmodern. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Da Vinci, L. (1945). The drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. Dominiczak, M.H. (2012 July). The skill and the broad knowledge: Albrecht Durer as the epitome of the artist-intellectual. Clinical Chemistry, 58 (7), pp.1168-1170. Dunn, W.P. (1950). Sir Thomas Browne: A study in religious philosophy. The United States of America: University of Minnesota Press. Evans, E.C. (1969). Physiognomics in the ancient world. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, lix, pp.5-101. Getlein, D.V. (1963). The bite of the print: Satire and irony in woodcuts, engravings, etchings, lithographs, and serigraphs. New York: C.N. Potter Publications. Gombrich, E.H. (1976). Leonardo’s method of analysis and permutation: The grotesque heads. In The heritage of Apelles. New York: Cornell University Press, pp.43-75. Gombrich, E.H. and Kris, E. (1940). Caricatures. London: Penguin Books. Kemp, M. (2006). Leonardo da Vinci: The marvellous works of nature and man. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kwakkelstein, M.W. (1994). Leonardo da Vinci as physiognomist: Theory and drawing practice. Leiden, Netherlands: Primavera Pers. Kwakkelstein, M.W. (1991). Leonardo da Vinci’s grotesque heads and the breaking of the physiognomic mould. Reviewed work. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 54, pp.127-136. Lavater, J.C. (1826). Physiognomy. London: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, K. (2005 Summer). Humanistic self-representation in Giovan Battista Della Porta’s “Della Fisonomia Dell’ Uomo”: Antecedents and innovation. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 36 (2), pp.397-414. McMahon, A.P. (1956). Treatise on painting by Leonardo da Vinci. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McTighe, S. (1993). Perfect deformity, ideal beauty, and the Imaginaire of work: The reception of Annibale Carracci’s Arti di Bologna in 1646. The Oxford Art Journal, 16 (1), pp.75-91. NPG (National Portrait Gallery). (2010). Hands-on heads: Popular theories of portraiture and personality. In-Focus, National Portrait Gallery, London. http://www.npg.org.uk/assets/migrated_assets/docs/beyond/partners/beningbrough-hall/ben_handsonheads.pdf [Accessed 25 December 2012]. Nussbaum, J.F. and Coupland, J. (2004). Handbook of communication and aging research. 2nd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Porter, M. (2005). Windows of the soul: Physiognomy in European culture 1470-1780. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Porterfield, T.B. (2011). Efflorescence of caricature, 1759-1838. Farnham: Ashgate Publications. Rao, K.S. (2007). Global encyclopedia of the theoretical anthropology, Volume 1. India: Global Vision Publishing House. Saxl, F. and Wittkower, R. (1948). British art and the Mediterranean. London: Oxford University Press. Stemmler, J.K. (1993). The physiognomical portraits of Johann Caspar Lavater. The Art Bulletin, 75 (1), pp.151-168. White, V.M. (2009). Serio Ludere: Baroque Invenzione and the Development of the Capriccio. PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University. Zapperi, R. (1986). The summons of the Carracci to Rome: Some new documentary evidence. Burlington Magazine, 128, pp.203-205. Ziegler, J. (2007). Review. Windows of the soul: The art of physiognomy in European culture 1470-1780. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Social History of Medicine, 20 (2), pp. 398-400. Bibliography of Illustrations AWN (Animation World Network). (2010). The art of the caricature first appeared in Agostino Carracci’s ‘Sheet of Caricatures’ (detail), 1594. Animation World Network. http://www.awn.com/imagepicker/image/4789 [Accessed 3 January 2013]. DaVinci’s Ideabox. (2010). Technique: Leonardo da Vinci’s Ideabox. http://creativethinking.net/DT08_DaVincisIdeabox.htm?Entry=Good [Accessed 3 January 2013]. MetMuseum. (2012). Grotesque head: Man in profile to right. Metopolitan Museum of Art, New York. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/17.142.3 [Accessed 3 January 2013]. Old Master Drawings. (2013). Annibale Carracci: Sheet of Studies of caricatures of famous artists of his time. Bologna 1560-1609 Rome. Sotheby’s Catalogue. http://www.sothebys.com/fr/catalogues/ecatalogue.html/2009/old-master-drawings-n08515#/r=/fr/ecat.fhtml.N08515.html+r.m=/fr/ecat.lot.N08515.html/82/ [Accessed 3 January 2013]. PDR (The Public Domain Review). (2011). Giambattista Della Porta’s De humana physiognomonia. Libri IIII (1586). http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/08/30/giambattista-della-portas-de-humana-physiognomonia-libri-iiii-1586/ [Accessed 25 December 2012]. Postercartel. (2011). Grotesque heads. http://www.postercartel.com/en/1700-64106.aspx?o=1700p-64106&size=9 [Accessed 3 January 2013]. Pulitzer Arts. (2012). Agostino Carracci, Studies of Grotesques. The Pulitzer Foundation for the arts. http://www.pulitzerarts.org/resources/press/exhibition/oldmasters/images/26/ [Accessed 3 January 2013]. Visual Art Encyclopedia. (2011). A grotesque head. WikiPaintings. http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/leonardo-da-vinci/a-grotesque-head-grotesque-head [Accessed 3 January 2013]. VTS. (2012). Silhouette zootropes: Lavater’s treatise. http://www.fulltable.com/vts/s/silh/s.htm [Accessed 3 January 2012]. WebMuseum. (2002). Durer, Albrecht: Self-portraits. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/self/ [Accessed 3 January 2012]. Wikipaintings. (2012). Annibale Carracci: Sheet of caricatures. 1560-1609. Visual Art Encyclopedia. http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/annibale-carracci/sheet-of-caricatures [Accessed 3 January 2013]. Wikipedia. (2012). Johann Kaspar Lavater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Kaspar_Lavater [Accessed 3 January 2012]. Read More