Constantino Brumidi, Michelangelo of the United States Capitol

by Myrtle Cheney Murdock

Introduction

ENSHRINED in the domed Rotunda of the United States Capitol, as in the Roman Pantheon from which it is descended, are the noblest hopes of a mighty Nation. Yet less fearful of incurring the wrath of an unpropitiated power than the ancients who raised a statue in their sacred temple to “The Unknown God,” the American people have neglected and all but forgotten patriotic mural painting. Long overdue also is grateful tribute to its one-time protagonist, Constantino Brumidi. The story of Brumidi’s life in this country and his labors to express allegorically its principles of government and record visually the events and personalities which achieved its establishment should be instructive reading for many and particularly for those concerned with the direction of American painting. By it they may be led to the realization of a vital force that should be an important factor in national life, an unknown power needed now in support of the heritage we are called upon to defend.

The early settler in North America had little opportunity for monumental painting. The austerity of religious belief dominating many new world settlements, infused as they were with the spirit of the Reformation, afforded meager encouragement to its development. American artists, following Benjamin West to England, leaned heavily upon British custom and precedent. West’s pupils—Charles Willson Peale, Gilbert Stuart and Joseph Wright—became makers of likenesses, and liberty-loving John Trumbull pursued historical painting to produce four of the eight great framed pictures of the Rotunda of the Capitol. Contrasted with Brumidi’s paintings, these mark the difference between the easel picture, a loosely related, detachable embellishment, and mural decoration designed in scale and color especially to enhance architecture.

The easel picture, the favored form of painting in the United States, is a symbol not only of the American artist’s independence of expression and freedom of enterprise but also of his dependence upon his own resources and private patronage. Easily transported, it is adaptable for exhibit in distant galleries, for sale to successive owners, and is more easily reproduced. In the 19th century it was largely the means of living for the professional fine artist. George Catlin found admission charges to his exhibits remunerative. Others turned to engravings of their subjects for profit. In the 20th century the framed picture has become the delight of the amateur. American enjoyment of freedom of thought and action is lived in the solitude of private studios. Yet too rarely do these common privileges and fortunate blessings become the subject matter of the canvases. These canvases exist solely for the enjoyment of the individual.

Mural painting, however, in comparison to easel picture painting, is made for the edification of large numbers of people and demands the formal presentation of themes affecting all. The work of Brumidi, though in a foreign style long past the crest of its vigor in service to the Church, was found more suited to the requirements of monumental architecture than that of native painters of the middle of the 19th century.

The monumental mural is usually better if executed in fresco, the medium which Brumidi used. This process of painting directly on the wall is called “fresco secco” if the wall is allowed to harden and become almost dry and the pigment bound to it by means of a glue size, casein or egg yolk. This is much inferior to the true or “buono fresco” employed by Brumidi in the dome which is painting on freshly laid plaster with pigment suspended in pure water. Because the mortar sets in six or eight hours the painting must be done in sections no larger than can be completed at one time. In true fresco a finished study is generally required. Frequently this assumes the form of a full-size detailed drawing known as a cartoon. The outline of this is transferred to the damp plaster wall by pouncing dry color through a perforated tracing or “pattern,” or the cartoon on very light tough paper may be held against the surface and contours pressed into the damp wall with a stylus.

Figures are modeled within the drawn lines. Terre verte is employed in underpainting flesh, the rosier tones being superimposed later. Accessories are painted in washes of varying depths and appropriate colors further deepened or lightened until the desired three-dimensional effect is gained. In the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo used color glazes with such economy that the panels and single figures of his great ceiling decorations truly appear as water color paintings. Brumidi depended upon a heavier use of pigment and built up his lights opaquely.

If the day’s allotted portion is not satisfactorily finished while the wall is still absorbent, it must be removed and worked again. As the moisture leaves, the mortar sets and the wall hardens, its colors becoming lighter and more sparkling as the white lime and crystalline sand shine through. Carbon dioxide, ever present in the air, gradually combines with calcium hydroxide of the lime plaster resulting in a carbonate not unlike marble itself and very durable. Thus, the decoration is truly a part of the architecture and, being inseparable from it, is far more satisfactory than canvases from the most able painters to be attached to wall or ceiling.

In the face of the current challenge to the American way of life our painters should be given space in our Federal and State buildings for decorations reaffirming the faith that made our Nation great. More artists at present should be engaged in depicting the virtues of our system of government in the interest of the development of appreciative citizenship upon which it so justly depends.

Today, due to the rapidly declining private fortunes of the industrialist-connoisseur class, the artist is facing a vacuity in art patronage. Establish in its place a small but steadily sustained federal program of mural painting, and a revival is possible here in the United States not unlike that experienced in England when the social satire of Hogarth’s brush was followed under royal patronage by one of the most productive and prosperous periods of British painting.