The revival of the playable musical instrument we use today took its roots from Bach’s viola pomposa, of which there is little iconographic evidence. Still, there are quite a few surviving instruments in museums.
Bsip3327, this is how it looks in the online database
Bach’s viola pomposa and/or violoncello piccolo have their roots in Italian cello, and here is where iconography comes into our story, not a “license” anymore, but proof of something? And because there is little standardisation, It feels like a chorus shouting at us, and we are easily caught by enthusiasm.
Personally, I love the enthusiasm. I love being enthusiastic about something, and I hate when I have to dull someone else’s enthusiasm. Because one thing is shouting out: hey, look at this! And one other to take them as proof in research. This happens so often when speaking of Violoncello da Spalla. Because Spalla was the product of a long evolution, and the one we know today was played for little time, probably something like 50 years, then abandoned, we need to be very careful: when we bring on an iconography, are we appreciating the “true” instrument, the playing position, the size…?
After so many years of suffering from cellists yelling at us that playing da Spalla is simply ridiculous, enthusiasm at every da Spalla iconography, no matter the size (the bigger, the better!) or the time, feels like inevitable. I thought it would be helpful to ask Barry Pearce, musician, researcher and iconography expert, for a “checklist”.
Speaking specifically of Violoncello da Spalla what should we check before shouting out: “Hurray, I got the perfect Violoncello da Spalla iconography”?
Iconography is far more complex than we might first think. To use it effectively requires concerted effort. What we are actually trying to do is to determine information about real objects via the depictions of an another person and then interpreted by us. The vast majority of the time we are attempting to use iconography in a way it was never intended to be used. First and foremost, before tackling iconography we really need to understand the most fallible link in the process, Us: the observers. Unless we understand some basic epistemology (how we acquire knowledge) and cognitive psychology (how we process information and make decisions), we will unknowingly be ruled by a flawed system. For instance, almost every time iconography is used someone will list all of the problems ad nauseum, most of which are possibilities not certainties. This is often centered on the idea of 'trust' which is highly problematic in itself! Yet, when we deal with extant instruments it is less common for problems to be mentioned, and when we discuss treatises there is almost no mention at all of any problems with the source. They are often taken as fact where we just need to ascertain the meaning as language has changed. Already this skewing of way we treat historical evidence shows a bias. Our language gives indications about how we are processing the information, such as making statements that certain aspects are 'right' or 'wrong'. Yet to achieve right or wrong we are making a comparison. Are we certain that the knowledge we are using to make these decisions is based on the same rigor that we subject the iconography to? What is our own knowledge based on? A book told us? Is that good enough? What was the basis for the statements in the book? and so on. This is why using iconography is incredibly interesting, and we haven't even started to deal with the actual depictions!
…why should time (and place) be so important? The fact that there were da Spalla instruments in 1500 or in 1900, is not a proof that Violoncello da Spalla existed also in Bach’s time?
It seems that each iconography we find has something wrong: may be the size, the lack of reliable comparison therms, the bowing position, the time or the place! Shall we return to the idea of artistic license, and nothing proofed? Do you believe in iconography as a possible proof, or is it only something to ignite our curiosity and maybe raise questions?
Naturally we must treat iconography with the same rigor we treat all historical evidence. There are numerous approaches and the approach used depends on the answer being sought. For me there is one overriding question. Given the unknown, how can we make sense it. This may seem like an unrelated philosophical question, but it is vitally important. Take artistic license. How do we decide something is artistic license? We compared what was depicted and found it does not match what we already "know". Some of what we know may be well founded, such as laws of physics. But what about playing positions? bow holds? Instrument sizes? How do we know a bow hold is artistic license? Can one ever know when claiming artistic license? Or do we use it to simply reject features that do not match our existing knowledge - which is a cognitive bias kicking in! If we let these biases rule then we will never learn anything new - because anything that challenges will be rejected. Of course artistic license is merely a way of labeling invention. However, there are different types of invention, and those types of inventions change over time. Of course, invention may or may not have occurred. The question is how do you know whether it has or hasn't?
Do I think iconography holds truths? Absolutely, however because of the filtering through the artist(s) and ourselves (the observers!) it is not necessarily easy to find these truths. I think it is rare to find any depiction that one might accept as a mirror of reality. Some truths are of course beyond the realms of iconography, but I think we can try to obtain as much information as we can. Even stick people drawings can yield some truths - of course they may not contain any information about the particular truths being sought!
Saying something is a violoncello da spalla, is to classify. Classification is another complex topic, and the criteria used can radically alter our understanding of instruments and history. Take the da spalla playing position. What are the criteria that constitutes a da spalla playing position? Should all variation be treated as the same? These questions start to deal with aggregation and may cause quantisation. Take a cello. We all know what we mean by cello...or at least I think we do. What is the criteria to define a cello? How much do we have to alter before we no longer classify it as a cello. Compare this with the violoncello da spalla. How different are the criteria? Are there crossover cases? How should we deal with these? I would love to be able to provide a checklist for working with iconography, but to properly use iconography requires much more.
This is how the fresco in Crema entry looks into Bsip: “With these frescos I hate the way you only ever see the cropped detail. With all these churches I tried to locate photos which show the full location so based on the BSIP entry you can literally walk into the build and *know* where the iconography is!”
Please tell us more abut your BSIP (Bowed Strings Iconography Project). Why did you start it?
BSIP was borne out of frustration. When I started doing research the problem of re-creating a data set from a PhD thesis or book was, and still is surprisingly difficult. The usual citation of artwork fails to produce results, and often merely resolves to hints about sources, with some being impossible to ever resolve. Attributions change, a lot of artwork is sold through auction and even website auction pages are removed. References such as Anonymous, Madonna & Child, 15th century, Spain are unsearchable on the Internet, and impossible to confirm without an image. I decided to make a difference and to fully publish my data set. At the same time I set out to solve the referencing/citation problem by designing BSIP references. These references not only uniquely identify a given artwork, but also can be used to specify a specific bow, instrument or musician, a specific image within a source and even a specific instrument depiction shown on a specific image. Together there are three important benefits for research; effort can be spent on doing actual research instead of being wasted on finding sources that have been found hundreds of times before by other researchers, and to make research more repeatable, particularly where iconographic surveys are used, and citations that include BSIP references are guaranteed to resolve to images of the source.
What is it exactly, how would you define it?
The project itself is really about improving research into bowed string instrument history. The BSIP database is a move towards a unified corpus (which naturally will always be incomplete!). The database in turn supports BSIP referencing to improve referencing/citation. The project is about more than a simple catalogue. I am greatly influenced by science, and specifically Open Science. Open Science and the principles it encompasses (such as Open Data and Open Access) is finding support in the Arts & Humanities. It is sometimes called Open Scholarship in recognition of the broader application of the guiding principles. BSIP promotes these principles. I believe in leading by example, and so I am slowly publishing my own data set of over 17000 sources.
How can we participate and use it?
The database is online and is free to access (Open Access). BSIP referencing can be used to improve references/citations and I would like to encourage inclusion of the BSIP reference when listing sources. The BSIP database system (known as the IRP - Iconography Research Platform) is designed for multiple curators and I certainly welcome like-minded researchers who are willing to help catalogue the sources and/or share their data sets via the database. My ultimate vision is to have a community of researcher-curators from around the world who share sources from their region.
If I have a source and I want to cite the Bsip reference, but I don't really know much about it, how can I do?
There are two ways to get info. Isolate the image and do a google reverse image search - this may give the info you who/what/where. And of course there is always the option of give me a shout!
What is online now is only around 20% of the Iconography I have. I have written a specialist search which will search all the images based on a fragment - it doesn't even have to be exact - I use techniques which are really good at matching. This takes 5 minutes to execute on a 4-core computer - hence I haven't placed this facility online.
When I get a chance I am hoping to develop this using an additional technique, which wont make it as accurate but will make it much much quicker and lighter onthe processors - so I can put a reverse image search online. If there are sources you want to cite and have people access the records I can also be nudged and will quickly put the source online - I did this just this week for Loren Ludwig who wondered if I knew about a source and wanted better images/info. These are the types of matches I can do! You might recognise these! 🙂
This sort of search cannot be done on google hence I wrote software but doing this stuff across 27000 images takes a few mins of the PC running at max!
And what if I realize I have a better image that the one in the database?
I have a policy that its better to catalogue something even if we only have poor images so it is at least known. Then hopefully over time as people visit these various places we can improve the images - and as photography advances and we get higher and higher resolution images the BSIP database will continue to keep up - I already support gigapixel images:
BSIP is built for the long-term and anticipating improvements in imagery.
Isn’t this impressive? The project Barry started is so huge that cannot be ready and done in a snap, he did so much that it already feels he has a team working with him, but he has not. We wish this could happen soon! Take this as a call for like-minded researchers!
“The vast majority of the time we are attempting to use iconography in a way it was never intended to be used.”
Updates from our workshop
This week they finally played! Both of them! Yet, I have little to share now. I did a quick video recording then I moved on. I took everything off again so that I can do the first phases of the varnishing process before going to visit my parents, next week. I am very happy about this cello! Today I played the first notes also with Alessandro’s one, which promises to have a gorgeous and powerful voice. I didn’t have the time to record anything, so will share later.
The great news of this week is that Alessandro retired from his orchestra chair, after 44 years there. There were many celebrations and it was an emotionally intense week. The best celebration was getting to play our new instruments and looking forward to a luthier career!
Alessandro takes applauses by his colleagues at his last concert with Haydn Orchestra in Trento
Featured video of the week
Enjoy some new music written specifically for Violoncello da Spalla! From Taipei!
A quick note from Barry Pearce: BSIP references aren't intended to replace citation, but be included in them. For example:
Barbello, Giovanni Giacomo, Assunzione di Maria, 1643, Santuario di Santa Maria delle Grazie, Crema, nave ceiling, bsip3357