ANDREA PISANO. – Goldsmith and sculptor, son of the notary Ugolino di Nino, born in Pontedera, near Pisa, around 1295. In January 1330, the art of Calimala (Corporation of Merchants) commissioned him to make the panels for one of the doors of the Baptistery of Florence; they were cast in bronze in 1332 and gilded in 1336. They bear the artist’s signature and the date 1330. After Giotto’s death he was appointed chief master of the Opera of the cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore, and undertook the continuation of the work on the bell tower, which had been begun in 1334. In 1343, however, he was dismissed from office, according to Pucci—who mentions the matter in his Centiloquio—for having introduced changes to the original project by Giotto that were not well received; according to others, as a consequence of the expulsion of the duke of Athens, from whom A. had received commissions and favors. In May 1347 we find him chief master of the Opera of the cathedral of Orvieto. He died in 1348 or ’49, leaving two sons who were also sculptors, NIO (v.) BADIA, TOMMASO (v.). The bronze panels of the Baptistery of Florence are his only certainly documented work: they are divided into twenty-eight compartments and contain, within quatrefoil frames, twenty Scenes from the life of S. John the Baptist, with allegorical representations of Virtues in relief below. The iconographic sources for the stories of the Baptist have been identified in the thirteenth-century mosaics of the dome of the Florentine Baptistery, which A. nevertheless skillfully transformed, adapting them to the new taste, and in Giotto’s frescoes in S. Croce, followed more faithfully by the sculptor. His intervention in the sculptural decoration of Giotto’s bell tower likewise appears certain, more precisely in the execution of the lower series of hexagonal relief panels with the Stories of the Creation of Man and representations of the Mechanical Arts: some of these reliefs were produced in collaboration with Giotto himself, but it is not known whether he merely supplied the designs for them or actually prepared the models.
The most recent criticism has succeeded in considerably expanding the catalogue of A.’s works, both by restoring to him sculptures traditionally attributed to his son Nino and by reinterpreting with greater reliability the scant documentary evidence and the testimony of the earliest historians, such as Ghiberti. Thus, alongside the better-known figure of the goldsmith and master of small reliefs, that of the sculptor of fully rounded statues, in marble and wood, is becoming increasingly clear. A. can certainly be credited with: the highly elegant wooden statue of the Annunciation in the Museum of Pisa which, because a recent restoration revealed the date 1321, would be the only surviving work by A. earlier than the Florentine panels (attributed by Carli and Valentiner); two marble statuettes, the Redeemer and S. Reparata, in the Museum of the Opera of Florence (attributed by Schmarsow); four large statues—David, Solomon, the Erythraean Sibyl and the Tiburtine Sibyl—on the exterior of Giotto’s bell tower (ca. 1338–42, mentioned by Ghiberti); certain parts of the Monument to Archbishop Simone Saltarelli (d. in 1342) in S. Caterina at Pisa (attributed by Carli and Valentiner); and a splendid Madonna and Child in the Museum of the cathedral of Orvieto (attributed by Lanvi), which would be the Master’s last work and perhaps his masterpiece. Less certain, though by no means implausible, is the attribution to A. of other statues, such as those inside the Oratory of the Spina in Pisa, a Madonna in the Detroit Museum, and so forth. A critical assessment of A.’s art cannot disregard the contacts he had with Giotto, which profoundly influenced the formation of the sculptor’s style. He decisively departed from the now tired and mannered tradition of the followers of Giovanni Pisano, inaugurating a second and fervent period in Pisan sculpture. From Giotto A. derived that compositional clarity, that serenity, and that firm, monumental, self-contained rhythm which lend a classical character to his creations; while the Gothic taste for line, which he adopted in all its melodic freedom, operates intimately in defining the plastic and compositional values, remaining free from all decorativism and every form of hedonistic indulgence. – Vedi Tavv. CIII-CIV.