Seventeenth International Conference on the Arts in Society

Abstract

Non-finito is a term used to identify an artwork as unfinished, while referring to the visibility of the medium in which it was (being) made. A work may remain unfinished either as a result of historical coincidence, or by its author’s intention, where non-finito is used as a pictorial principle, which puts it in a complex relation with different mimetic theories. While the previous explorations of these topics focused separately on each phenomenon, this paper explores the nature of their relation, regarding the theory and practice of mainly 16th and 17th century painting. Given the complexity of both non-finito and mimesis, the definitions of which depend on the way a certain culture, period, region, author, or work perceives reality, it is not always simple to determine whether they are contradictory or complementary in relation to each other. Yet, in general terms, if mimesis is considered a complete illusion where the difference between art and reality is unnoticeable, non-finito is then anti-mimetic, as it disrupts the clarity of said illusion. On the other hand, it offers painters a method of creating pictures that are seemingly more substantial than those conventionally finished; alluding to and suggesting, rather than describing their subjects, which enables them to express more complex meanings rooted equally in form as well as content of the work.