Madrigal or canzona? Performing intellectual and sensual pleasure in Jacopo Tintoretto’s <i>Women making music</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The vague mythological context of Jacopo Tintoretto’s Women making music (after 1566, Dresden Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) has puzzled scholars, resulting in little consensus regarding the allegorical meaning of the work. H. Colin Slim, for example, emphasized the orderly disposition of bodies in the painting, suggesting a musical-cosmological reading of the work. Liana de Girolami Cheney, on the other hand, includes the sensual in her reading, suggesting that the painting represents the dual natures of Venus. In this article, I build on Cheney’s dual reading of the work but focus differently on the partbooks and performance, exploring how the painting blurs lines between painting as performance, and music-making as visual experience, resulting in a painted performable image. I first demonstrate how the music in the depicted partbooks encodes two divergent ways of experiencing the painting: one characterized by learned and clever allusions in the case of Andrea Gabrieli’s madrigal Quando lieta, and the other through pleasure and the erotic in the case of the anonymous canzona napolitana Dolc’amorose. By using the partbooks as interpretative clues, I argue that the painting contributes to the Renaissance paragone between painting and music, in particular a shift away from early 16th-century associations between painting, music and reason towards a celebration of the manual, sensory and embodied acts of painting. This interpretation of the painting requires the viewer to identify the songs through a combined strategy of seeing and singing, with the painting sounding differently depending on which music the viewer performs: the intricate and elevated madrigal or the sensually pleasing canzona. Seen thus, the painting blurs lines between painting and music, visual and aural, object and performance, introducing an element of ‘play’ that decentres any one allegorical meaning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".