Giorgione was a superior manwith the brush, but not
quite up to his contemporary Titian. He,in common with Imola, already mentioned, was
indebted to the art ofRaphael. As a brushman he was a superior man, but not equal to
Titian.
It was in drawing that he showed his power. His
tale was largely ofhumanity under a religious or classical name, but a noble,
majestichumanity.
Their leastfeatures under his brush seemed to glow
like jewels.
With Giorgione there was a lyricfeeling as shown in
music. He was the very opposite of Michael Angelo. It was not wholly successful,
though resulting in anexcellent quality of art.
Heassimilated freely whatever he found to be good
in the art about him. He wasinfluenced by Bellini at first, and then by Giorgione.
He saw and painted that which was universal in itstruth.
With Giorgione there was a lyricfeeling as shown in
music.
Petersburgh, and other galleries; Beltraffio,
Madonna Louvre, Barbara Berlin Gal. He was not, however, agreat original mind,
though in many respects a perfect painter.
Thesame spirit ruled him in classic and theological
themes.
As a technician he sought difficultiesrather than
avoided them. He emphasized nothing,yet elevated everything.
It was in drawing that he showed his power. He was
more in love with physical life without being anenthusiast over it.
Almost all of the late Venetian work was of that
character.
John Lateran Rome; Sebastiano del Piombo, Lazarus
Nat. Marcello Rome; Sabbatini, Adoration Naples Mus.
And thiswas not a slight or unworthy conception.