It considered this unbalanced or asymmetrical aspect is a style effect, and called it as “contraste”.
Another subtle similarity could be their love of exaggeration and decoration. Mannerism was inclined to portray anything, especially human form, in an exaggeratedly than realistically; they used artificial colors and unrealistic proportions. In most cased, the figures were exaggerated, placed in unimaginable poses. It was “unsettling and strange”. Rococo loved decoration, though it did not focus on human forms. For example, Rococo paintings had an element of “naughtiness or impurity in the behavior of their subjects”, which can be associated with unrealistic nature of the objects of Mannerism.
The first difference between Mannerism and Rococo is that Mannerism is not “natural, graceful” like the high Renaissance art; it uses “clashing colors, disquieting figures with abnormally elongated limbs, (often torturous-looking) emotion and bizarre themes”, however, Rococo uses “undulating lines and S-curves prominent in Rococo are the basis for grace and beauty in art or nature; (“Rococo”, 2009; “Art History: Mannerism: (1520 - 1600)”, 2009). So Rococo is more akin to Renaissance in portraying the gracefulness in nature than Mannerism.
Yet another difference is that Mannerism “combines Classicism, Christianity and mythology”, but Rococo’s use of curved lines was “unlike the straight line or the circle in Classicism” (“Rococo”, 2009; “Art History: Mannerism: (1520 - 1600)”, 2009).
Mannerism was often considered “technically masterful” whereas the critics of Rococo had pointed out its frivolous nature due to its focus on decorative arts and interior design and the importance it gave to the style component, despite its taste for the complex and intricate forms of Baroque art. Rococo had light hearted themes depicted in a fashionable