A Palazzo Pitti, Firenze

The view of Florence from one of the upper floors of the Palazzo Pitti. If you look closely, at the bottom is a statue of Cosimo I's court dwarf, Pietro Barbino, riding naked on a turtle.

The modern art gallery at the Palazzo Pitti is much underwritten in our various guidebooks, talked down and included as an afterthought to the effusive praise given to the main gallery of Medici commissioned and collected Renaissance paintings.

Of the hundreds of (mostly Italian) artists displayed - all new to me - Raffaello Sorbi and Alfredo Muller particularly caught my eye. The whole gallery was outstanding though, with works from the 17th to 20th centuries included as 'modern' in Florentine eyes, and worth a visit on its own. If you prefer post-Renaissance go round the modern art display before the main event - the sheer volume of works packed into every room of both galleries meant we'd hit the wall after a couple of hours before even getting into the modern gallery.

The scale and skill of the Renaissance works are plain, but I find it difficult to get hooked by the biblical and mythical scenes without a full history and context of artist and subject in each case.

The combination of subject matter and style of the later works makes a much more immediate impression on me, and gives a much deeper look into the character of the subject. Do all art newbies feel this way? I'm hoping our weekly visits to Florence will broaden my palat(t)e. What's the etymology there?

Back to the Palazzo Pitti - it swapped ducal hands a few times after the Medicis, eventually ending up with the Bonapartes during their romp through Europe, aiding the influence of the French on Italian artists during this time.

Apparently French 19th century landscape artists used a black mirror to clearly show light and shade, removing intermediates, when considering their scene. Does everyone already know this?