Modern Theories of Art 1: From Winckelmann to Baudelaire 9780814787274

Citation preview

Modern Theorie s o f Art , 1

Moshe Barasc h

MODERN THEORIE S OF ART , 1 From Winckelman n t o Baudelair e

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S NEW YOR K AN D LONDO N 1990

Copyright © 199 0 b y Ne w Yor k Universit y All rights reserve d Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a

Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Barasch, Moshe . Modern theorie s o f art , 1 : fro m Winckelman n t o Baudelaire / Moshe Barasc h p. cm . Bibliography: p . Includes indexes . ISBN 0 - 8 1 4 7 - 1 1 3 3 - 2 (alk . paper ) 1. Art—Philosophy . 2 . Aesthetics , Modern—18t h century . 3. Aesthetics , Modern—19t h century . I . Titl e N70.B2 198 9 89-3468 2 701—dc20 CI P

New Yor k Universit y Pres s book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability .

Book design by Ken Venezio

Contents

PREFACE vi

i

I. TH E EARLY EIGHTEENT H CENTUR Y I 2. BEGINNING S O F THE NEW AGE 8 9 3. UNIT Y AN D DIVERSITY O F THE VISUAL ART S 14 4. TH E SYMBOL 22

4

£. TH E ARTIST 28

4

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSA Y 39 NAME INDE X 4 0 SUBJECT INDE X 4

1

9 1£

All illustrations appear as a group following p. v

184.

6

Preface

The theme s an d doctrine s presente d i n thi s volum e hav e hel d m y attention fo r man y years . I n th e cours e o f tim e I hav e bee n helped , o r forced, t o clarif y an d develop e som e o f th e ideas—mainl y b y students , whose persisten t question s I remembe r wit h gratitude . In pursuin g th e studies tha t le d t o thi s histor y o f art theor y I leaned heavil y o n th e hel p of librarians . Whereve r I came , the y hav e offere d m e hel p an d friend ship. Wit h particula r gratitud e I should recor d th e assistanc e offere d b y the staf f o f th e Universit y Librar y i n Jerusalem, an d b y th e librarian s a t Yale University . I t i s a pleasure t o acknowledg e gratefull y th e livel y an d stimulating interes t Mr . Coli n Jones , directo r o f Ne w Yor k Universit y Press, ha s take n i n thi s book . I was encourage d b y hi m i n al l th e stage s of writing . I n th e proces s o f publicatio n th e boo k ha s benefite d fro m the car e an d devote d attentio n o f Mrs . Despin a P . Gimbel , managin g editor o f th e press . Mrs . Mir a Reic h helpe d m e i n man y ways , an d no t for th e first time . I enjoyed th e continuin g hel p o f Dr . Lub a Freedman , colleague an d forme r student . And , a s wit h al l th e book s I have written , I than k m y wif e onc e agai n fo r he r particula r blen d o f encouragement , criticism, an d forbearance .

vn

I

The Earl y Eighteent h Century

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N Students o f letter s ar e ap t t o balk a t drawin g sharpl y demarcate d line s between periods . Suc h students , particularl y whe n the y hav e historica l leanings, kno w bette r tha n mos t that , a s a rule , th e pas t persist s i n th e present, an d tha t wha t no w seem s th e typica l expressio n o f th e presen t has ofte n bee n anticipate d i n th e past . Histor y i s a constantl y movin g stream, an d i n thi s dynami c complexit y th e attemp t t o find, o r establish , watertight compartment s i s almos t a desperat e one . Thi s bana l trut h i s valid, o f course , als o fo r th e histor y o f reflectio n o n th e figurative arts , that is , the theor y o f painting an d sculpture . Particularl y whe n w e com e closer t o moder n times , wher e th e clarifyin g effec t o f historical distanc e offers u s les s suppor t tha n i n th e cas e o f th e mor e remot e past , th e difficulties o f periodizatio n becom e mor e manifest . N o wonder , then , that fe w will ventur e t o sugges t a precis e dat e a t whic h moder n ar t theory begins . An d ye t student s o f ou r subjec t canno t hel p feelin g tha t around th e middl e o f th e eighteent h centur y som e event s occurre d that, smal l a s the y ma y seem , indicat e a dramati c turnin g poin t i n th e tradition o f aesthetic reflectio n o n th e visua l arts , and thu s ca n b e take n to announc e a ne w age . I should lik e t o mentio n a fe w o f thes e events . To mos t o f th e development s mentione d w e shal l hav e t o com e bac k i n

1

Modem Theories of Art different context s fo r mor e detaile d discussions . Her e I shal l lis t the m only i n concis e form . Th e crowdin g o f thes e date s withi n th e shor t spa n of fifteen year s ma y indicat e th e profoun d transformatio n tha t become s manifest a t th e middl e o f th e century . Precisely a t mid-century , i n 17^0 , Alexander Gottlie b Baumgarten , a student an d teache r o f Lati n rhetori c an d poetry , publishe d a volumi nous boo k bearin g th e wor d Aesthetica o n it s titl e pag e (afte r h e ha d already use d tha t ter m i n th e dissertatio n h e ha d compose d fifteen year s earlier). Aesthetics , h e said , denote s a specia l domai n o f cognition , namely th e domai n o f sensua l cognition . T o b e sure , i n th e hierarch y o f cognitional mode s sensua l cognitio n occupie s a lowe r ran k tha n cogni tions base d o n pur e idea s o f logica l derivation , bu t i t i s recognize d a s a domain i n it s ow n right , wit h a distinc t character . I n Baumgarten' s presentation th e domai n o f aesthetic s i s no t clearl y an d firmly outlined , but i t wa s onl y a shor t tim e befor e th e ter m h e coine d cam e t o denot e what w e no w understan d b y it . Thoug h originall y no t intende d primar ily fo r us e i n th e discussio n o f th e arts , i t soo n prove d a n excellen t conceptual framewor k fo r suc h a discussion , and , a s on e knows , i t ha s remained s o til l thi s ver y day . Shortly afte r th e publicatio n o f Baumgarten' s Aesthetica th e attentiv e reader mus t hav e fel t tha t h e wa s witnessin g a kin d o f eruption . Th e year IJSS prove d particularl y abundan t i n expression s o f aestheti c thought. I n tha t yea r Mose s Mendelssoh n publishe d hi s Briefe iiber die Empfindungen, tryin g t o defin e th e philosophica l statu s o f aesthetics . Since beaut y i s a n "indistinc t imag e o f a perfection, " h e believed , Go d can hav e n o perceptio n o f beauty ; thi s i s a particularl y huma n experi ence. I n th e sam e yea r a young an d hithert o unknow n schoolmaste r an d librarian, Johan n Joachi m Winckelmann , publishe d a sli m pamphlet , Thoughts on the Imitation of the Greek Works of Painting and Sculpture. The little treatis e achieve d a surprising success ; the ric h ech o i t found clearl y shows tha t th e idea s suggeste d i n i t wer e u in th e air, " th e generatio n waiting fo r the m t o b e expressed . Whe n onl y eleve n year s late r Gott hold Ephrai m Lessing , wh o i n literar y histor y i s perceived i n th e rol e o f Moses wh o le d hi s peopl e ou t o f Frenc h servitud e towar d th e promise d land of Deutsche Klassik, publishe d hi s Laocoon (1766) , he argue d energeti cally agains t som e o f Winckelmann' s assertions , bu t h e clearl y treate d 2

The Early Eighteenth Century the idea s expresse d i n Thoughts on the Imitation a s generall y know n an d authoritative. Tw o year s befor e tha t date , i n 1764 , Winckelmann , wh o in th e meantim e ha d move d t o Rome , publishe d hi s History of Ancient Art. I t wa s th e first wor k t o us e th e ter m "histor y o f art " a s a description o f a field of study , an d th e first t o emplo y i t i n th e titl e o f the work . On e ca n sa y that , i n an importan t sense , th e yea r 176 4 is th e year in which th e histor y o f ar t wa s bor n a s an academic discipline . The yea r 1 7 ^ prove d crucia l i n stil l anothe r respect . I n tha t yea r began the more o r less systematic archaeologica l excavation s o f Pompei i and Herculaneum . The impac t o n art s an d letter s o f wha t thes e exca vations brough t t o ligh t wa s no t uniform , bu t i t wa s vivi d an d almos t instantaneous. Already , a yea r befor e th e beginnin g o f th e systemati c excavations, Charle s Cochi n fi/s and J. Bellicar d publishe d thei r Observations sur les antiquites de la ville d'Herculaneum (17^4) . I n thi s wor k the y tried t o com e t o term s wit h th e littl e tha t wa s a s yet know n abou t th e city, an d the y actuall y rejecte d th e testimon y o f wha t ha d bee n found , considering i t a margina l phenomenon . I n ou r nex t chapte r w e shal l have occasio n t o describ e ho w thi s attitud e changed . Th e grea t foli o edition o f Le Antichita di Ercolano bega n t o appea r i n 17^ 7 (th e sevent h volume wa s published i n 1779) , and its impact wa s immediate. I t is no w generally accepte d that , beginnin g abou t 1760 , development s i n th e visual arts, especially th e "classicist " trend, were accelerate d b y the ne w archaeological publications , particularly b y engravings after th e painting s in Pompei i an d Herculaneum . Bot h artist s an d patron s (amon g the m successive minister s o f Loui s X V an d Loui s XVI ) wer e imbue d wit h a new spiri t an d foun d authoritativ e legitimizatio n i n wha t coul d b e learned fro m th e ancien t painting s revealed . Bu t i t wa s no t onl y o n painting tha t th e great ne w discoverie s impose d themselves . Theoretica l reflection o n th e art s coul d no t neglec t th e revelation s mediate d b y what wa s discovered . Th e theme s o f ar t theor y wer e enlarge d b y th e results o f th e excavations . I n th e Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e period s th e impact of the classical traditio n wa s largely determined b y the sculptura l remains s o generousl y presen t i n Rome . Now , wit h th e treasure s o f Pompeii becomin g known , i t i s increasingl y painting , color , an d vivi d illusion tha t form th e imag e o f Antiquity . The crucia l decad e betwee n 17^ 0 an d 176 0 sa w stil l anothe r majo r 3

Modern Theories of Art departure i n th e annal s o f theoretica l reflectio n o n th e arts . I n 17^ 9 Denis Didero t bega n t o publis h hi s critica l review s o f th e Salons , th e biennial exhibition s o f contemporar y Frenc h painting . Ar t criticis m wa s not invente d b y Diderot—h e ha d forerunners ; bu t i t wa s onl y wit h him tha t thi s branc h o f ar t literatur e becam e institutionalized , an d attained th e significanc e w e no w assig n t o it . A s on e follow s Diderot' s successive review s on e ca n actuall y observ e ho w ar t criticis m emerge s and take s shape . Th e movemen t wa s rapid , an d th e leap s wer e wide . The revie w o f 17^ 9 i s stil l modes t i n siz e an d conservativ e i n taste ; th e critic her e follow s th e publishe r Grim m an d hi s personal attitude s quit e closely. Th e exhibitio n o f 176 1 i s reviewe d a t greate r length , wit h a n analysis o f detail s an d considerabl e backgroun d t o th e discussio n o f th e individual paintings . Didero t a t thi s poin t hesitate s muc h les s i n pro nouncing hi s persona l judgment . Wit h th e nex t revie w (discussin g th e exhibition o f 1763) , it ha s bee n said , bega n th e great perio d o f Diderot' s art criticism . No w h e wa s o n familia r term s wit h th e artists ; h e ha d visited the m i n thei r ateliers . Perhap s th e mos t strikin g sig n tha t ar t criticism ha d com e o f ag e wa s tha t Didero t spok e no t onl y o f th e paintings an d th e artist s wh o produce d them , bu t als o reflecte d o n th e virtues an d limitation s o f criticis m itself . Wit h th e revie w o f 176 ^ th e transformation o f ar t criticis m int o ar t theor y i s completed: i n additio n to th e criticis m o f tha t year' s exhibits , an d intimatel y interwove n wit h his critica l judgments , Didero t presente d hi s "Essa y o n Painting, " a theoretical consideratio n o f the basi c elements o f that art . A s the histor y of ar t ha d com e o f ag e wit h Winckelmann' s History of Ancient Art o f 1764, s o di d ar t criticis m wit h Diderot' s revie w o f th e Salon s o f 176 3 and 176^ . What wa s achieve d i n th e roughl y fifteen year s betwee n Baumgar ten's Aesthetica and Winckelmann' s History of Ancient Art o r Diderot' s 4 'Essay o n Painting " wa s no t onl y th e establishmen t o f aesthetics , th e history o f art , an d ar t criticis m a s importan t discipline s fo r whic h th e future hel d grea t development s i n store . Mor e tha n this , on e ma y safel y say, th e whol e approac h t o th e visua l art s wa s altered , it s ver y founda tions radicall y transformed . N o wonder , then , tha t ther e wa s a chang e in th e scop e an d characte r o f theoretical ar t literature , bot h wit h regar d to th e audienc e addresse d an d th e aim s th e author s se t ou t t o achieve . 4

The Early Eighteenth Century It i s onl y logica l als o tha t a shif t too k plac e i n th e actua l theme s discussed i n ar t theory . Thes e transformation s wer e s o radica l an d comprehensive tha t on e ca n wel l understan d historian s who , notwith standing thei r natura l hesitation , chos e 17^ 0 a s th e dat e symbolicall y marking th e beginnin g o f a new age . Yet i t i s equall y clear , I hope , tha t thi s momentou s transformatio n that burs t int o th e ope n withi n th e narro w confine s o f a decade an d a half, coul d no t hav e take n plac e ha d i t no t bee n evolving—hidde n from sight , a s i t were—ove r a longer perio d o f time . What , on e feel s compelled t o ask , brough t thi s chang e about ? Wha t mad e i t possible ? How ar e w e t o understan d tha t som e formulations , suggestin g rathe r than full y expressin g idea s tha t wer e revolutionar y fo r thei r time , ha d such a profoun d an d instantaneou s impact ? No t muc h effor t nee d b e expended t o convinc e th e studen t tha t a n analysi s o f th e generatio n o r two precedin g th e crucia l date s I have jus t liste d ma y yiel d interestin g results. I t i s ou r present tas k t o undertak e suc h a n analysis . W e shal l try t o discus s (a s fa r a s possibl e withi n th e limit s o f a singl e chapter ) pertinent development s i n th e firs t hal f o f th e eighteent h century . I t i s of course no t ou r intentio n t o provid e a n exhaustive pictur e o f intellec tual lif e i n thi s half-century , eve n i f limite d t o reflectio n o n th e arts . Whatever w e shal l tal k about , w e shal l d o s o wit h on e questio n i n mind: what prepare d th e revolutio n o f th e mid-century ? In the cours e o f th e chapte r w e shal l loo k a t thre e groups o f author s who approache d th e proble m o f th e visua l art s fro m quit e differen t points o f departure . Thoug h on e canno t hermeticall y isolat e on e grou p from th e othe r (a n individua l autho r ma y wel l belon g t o tw o group s a t the sam e time , o r a t differen t period s o f hi s life) , on e ca n safel y clai m that thes e group s differe d i n bot h backgroun d an d aims . Ye t on e wil l see, I hope, tha t i n spit e o f thei r disparatenes s the y hav e som e constit uent element s o r orientation s i n common , an d thu s fit int o a n overal l picture bot h o f th e ag e a s a whol e an d o f th e specifi c problem s (an d formulations) o f reflectio n o n th e visua l arts . The first grou p t o b e considere d ar e th e philosophers. I n th e earl y eighteenth centur y th e ter m "philosopher " i s no t a s clear—o r s o a t least i t seem s t o th e moder n student—a s i t was i n the ag e of Plat o and Aristotle, o r eve n i n tha t o f Descartes . No t onl y ar e ther e n o towerin g S

Modern Theories of Art figures i n th e though t o f th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h century ; th e very scop e an d natur e o f a philosopher' s subjec t matte r i s obscured . Frequently therefor e w e shal l hav e t o as k whethe r a certai n figure i s a philosopher o r whethe r h e shoul d rathe r b e classifie d wit h th e critics , the historians , o r som e othe r group . I n th e presen t chapter , then , th e term "philosopher " shoul d b e take n wit h eve n mor e cautio n tha n i s usually necessary . I n speakin g o f philosopher s I hav e i n min d thos e thinkers wh o deal t mainl y wit h genera l problem s an d whos e contribu tion t o th e stud y o f th e art s i s usuall y detache d fro m th e consideratio n of specifi c work s o f ar t o r particula r techniques . Another type , altogethe r differen t fro m th e philosopher s bot h i n th e kind o f materia l the y studie d an d i n th e fram e o f min d the y brough t t o that study , ar e th e antiquarians . I n th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h century the y attaine d notoriety , an d becam e a n importan t an d charac teristic featur e o f th e intellectua l lif e o f th e time . Usuall y avoidin g hig h abstraction, an d ofte n afrai d o f an y kin d o f generalization, the y di d no t contribute directl y t o th e stud y an d interpretatio n o f ar t a s suc h o r t o the theorie s abou t it . Ye t thei r variegate d activit y an d ampl e legac y ha d an important , i f ofte n roundabout , effec t o n th e variou s attempt s t o reflect theoreticall y o n wha t th e painte r an d sculpto r do . A carefu l study o f how the antiquarian s looke d a t thei r objects , an d o f wha t the y tried t o find i n them , ca n hel p u s better understan d ho w tha t seemingl y sudden revolutio n tha t burs t fort h i n th e middl e o f th e centur y wa s being prepare d fo r behin d th e scenes . The artist s themselve s ar e th e last , thoug h obviousl y no t th e leas t important, grou p whos e testimon y i s t o b e considere d i n thi s chapter . There i s n o deart h o f sources . Som e o f th e painter s wh o live d i n th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h centur y actuall y spok e a t grea t lengt h abou t their art . Bu t th e analysi s o f thei r literar y legac y poses , a s w e shal l see , particularly difficul t problem s o f interpretation . I f on e accept s th e readings her e suggested , the n artists ' testimon y ma y b e foun d t o she d a particularly interestin g ligh t o n wha t wa s goin g on—perhap s hidde n from mos t o f th e author s themselves—i n tha t transitor y period , th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h century , preparin g th e comin g o f a new age .

6

The Early Eighteenth Century II. TH E PHILOSOPHER S I. VIC O

To begi n a n attemp t a t drawin g a ma p o f eighteenth-centur y theorie s of paintin g an d sculptur e wit h a discussio n o f Giambattist a Vic o ma y call fo r a wor d o f explanation . A t firs t blush , no t muc h seem s t o recommend th e evokin g o f Vico' s spiri t i n thi s particula r context . H e did no t hav e a n appreciabl e influenc e i n hi s ow n period; h e wa s "discovered" only i n th e nineteent h century . Mos t important , h e wa s not concerne d wit h art ; hi s work i s perhap s bes t describe d a s a philosophy o f culture ; he ha s also been calle d "th e fathe r o f sociology. " Though h e devote d grea t attentio n t o wha t h e call s "poetics, " h e di d not cove r th e whol e rang e of th e arts , and what h e ha s to sa y about th e visual art s i s nex t t o nothing . Wh y the n doe s a student o f moder n ar t theory fee l impelle d t o invit e hi s reader s t o immers e themselve s i n th e teachings o f thi s strang e author , wh o seem s t o b e margina l t o ou r domain? I n th e followin g page s i t wil l emerge , I hope , tha t Vic o articulated th e basi s o f on e o f th e grea t trend s i n moder n though t o n art, includin g though t o n th e figurative art s o f paintin g an d sculpture . Some o f th e encompassin g problem s tha t hav e remaine d centra l issue s in th e theor y o f ar t wer e first projecte d b y Vico ont o th e horizo n o f European reflection . I f Vico, then , i s no t a productive "source " for th e understanding o f wha t hi s ow n generatio n believe d an d said , h e allow s us t o glanc e int o wha t wa s hidde n i n th e depth s o f eighteenth-centur y thought. The obscur e condition s o f Vico' s lif e hav e provide d a n attractiv e theme fo r moder n historians . Bor n i n Naple s i n 1668 , th e son o f a modest bookseller , h e spen t mos t o f hi s lif e i n hi s nativ e city , an d die d there i n 1744 . H e hel d a n inferio r professorshi p i n "rhetoric, " comple menting hi s modest salar y with all kind s of occasional jobs, among the m the compositio n o f othe r people' s inaugura l lecture s (som e o f whic h contain hi s mos t origina l ideas) . A cripple al l hi s lif e a s a result o f a fall in childhood , h e live d i n ill-fate d famil y condition s an d embittere d poverty, hi s geniu s no t recognize d fo r severa l generations . Thi s biogra phy, some scholar s suggest, 1 i s romantically exaggerated . W e kno w tha t 7

Modern Theories of Art Montesquieu bough t a cop y o f Vico' s boo k an d tha t Goethe , durin g hi s trip t o Ital y i n 1787 , spok e o f hi m wit h grea t admiration. 2 Bu t thoug h his vita obviously need s correctio n i n som e respects , i t remain s essen tially accurate . A philosophe r ou t o f plac e an d bor n befor e hi s time — this rathe r stereotype d traditiona l verdic t ha s mor e tha n a kerne l o f truth. Vic o publishe d severa l studies , bu t hi s centra l work , th e Scienza nuova, exerted a magi c spel l o n hi s life . After i t wa s printe d i n a firs t edition (172^) , h e practicall y rewrot e i t fo r th e secon d on e (1730) ; h e kept o n addin g t o it , an d whe n i t wa s reprinte d i n th e yea r o f hi s death , it wa s agai n considerabl y enlarge d an d changed . Ye t i n spit e o f thi s continual struggl e t o shap e hi s work , Vico' s styl e remaine d baroque , undisciplined, an d ofte n obscure . Th e eighteent h century , whic h s o much admire d clarity , punishe d hi m fo r hi s fault s b y forgettin g him . Eventually, however , th e abundanc e an d originalit y o f hi s idea s pre vailed. We ar e o f cours e no t concerne d wit h Vico' s syste m a s a whole , an d shall loo k onl y a t wha t ma y b e o f significance—eve n i f no t directly — for a n understandin g o f modern theorie s o f art. Amon g th e great theme s of Vico' s though t i s a versio n o f wha t w e woul d toda y cal l aesthetics . Benedetto Croce , th e Italia n philosophe r wh o di d s o muc h t o reviv e Vico, believe s tha t aesthetic s shoul d actuall y b e considere d a discover y of Vico, 3 though , a s on e knows , Alexande r Gottlie b Baumgarte n coine d the ter m onl y te n year s afte r th e first editio n o f th e Scienza nuova was published. Bu t Vico' s approac h t o th e aestheti c domai n i s not th e usua l one, an d i t neve r becam e th e accepte d academi c pattern . H e conceive d of aesthetics, whic h h e calle d "poetics, " as being concerne d wit h a basic human activity , seekin g no t t o giv e pleasur e o r embellis h truth s bu t t o articulate a visio n o f th e world . Vico's mai n approac h t o "poetics " i s th e analysi s o f language . I n language, h e believed , w e mak e a basi c distinctio n betwee n tw o modes , the litera l an d th e metaphorical . T o b e litera l i s t o cal l thing s b y thei r appropriate name s an d t o describ e the m i n plain , simpl e terms ; t o us e metaphor i s a poetica l wa y o f creatin g vivid , imaginativ e effects. 4 Th e significance fo r ou r subjec t o f what Vic o has to sa y about thi s distinctio n derives fro m th e fac t tha t metaphor , a descriptiv e mod e o f expression , 8

The Early Eighteenth Century has a natura l affinit y t o images . Th e discussio n o f metaphor s is , b y implication, a discussion o f th e natur e an d validity o f images. The origi n o f metaphor i s one o f Vico's importan t themes . Metapho r and simile , eve n allegory , ar e no t deliberat e artifices , calculated , thought out forms . The y ar e natura l way s o f expressin g a visio n o f lif e an d reality. Vico sharpl y reject s th e view s o f thos e "philologians " wh o conceive o f language a s a product o f convention. "O n th e contrary, " he says, becaus e th e meaning s o f word s hav e a natura l origin , "the y mus t have ha d natura l significations " (444). 5 Languag e ha s many feature s an d tropes, bu t "th e mos t luminou s an d therefor e th e mos t necessar y an d frequent i s metaphor " (402) . I t i s b y metapho r tha t w e tr y t o animat e nature an d giv e "sens e an d passio n t o insensat e things " (404) . "I t i s noteworthy," he continues , "tha t in all languages th e greater part of the expressions relatin g t o inanimat e thing s ar e forme d b y metapho r fro m the huma n bod y an d it s part s an d fro m huma n sense s an d passions " (40^). I n metapho r the n (and , b y implication , i n imagery ) w e com e t o terms wit h th e worl d surroundin g us , and make i t part of ourselves. To grasp th e ful l revolutionar y significanc e o f thes e view s on e ha s t o see the m agains t thei r prope r historica l background . Th e lat e seven teenth centur y wa s a tim e i n whic h th e ver y us e o f metapho r wa s widely suspect , it s theoretica l justificatio n hardl y imaginable . Metapho r was considered directl y oppose d t o any scientific fram e o f mind. Profes sor M. H . Abrams , i n his well-know n wor k The Mirror and the Lamp, ha s adduced a n impressiv e amoun t o f materia l t o sho w ho w i n th e seven teenth centur y metapho r cam e t o b e connecte d wit h "th e fals e worl d of ancien t superstitions , dreams , myths , terror s wit h whic h th e lurid , barbarous imagination s people d th e world , causin g erro r an d irrational ism an d persecution. 6 A s agains t metaphor , th e arbitrar y linguisti c sig n was hel d u p a s a n idea l o f clarity , whil e t o assur e th e statu s o f th e arbitrarily chose n linguisti c sig n i t wa s essentia l t o den y an y innat e layers o f speec h i n man . Ther e i s n o innat e language , man y o f th e progressive thinker s claimed . Natur e create d man without an y language, so Georg e Sibscota , on e o f th e earlies t student s o f th e speec h o f th e dumb and deaf, maintained , an d nature's purpos e i n doing s o wa s "tha t he may learn them all. . ." 7 I n this context, Isaia h Berlin quotes Thomas 9

Modern Theories of Art Sprat, on e o f th e founder s o f th e Roya l Society , t o th e effec t tha t th e Royal Societ y "shoul d avoi d 'mist s an d uncertainties, ' an d retur n t o ' a close, naked , natura l wa y o f speakin g . . . a s nea r th e Mathematica l Plainness a s the y can. ' " 8 Vico wa s obviousl y awar e o f thi s attitud e (thoug h no t necessaril y o f the individual s wh o articulate d it) , a s w e ca n se e fro m hi s polemica l remarks agains t th e u philologians" wh o defende d th e arbitrarines s o f the linguisti c sig n (444 ) Vico , b y contrast , believe d tha t metapho r i s a fundamental categor y o f viewin g th e world . Ho w fundamenta l an d irrevocable metapho r i s can b e see n fro m th e fac t tha t i t is man's innat e language, o r a t leas t essentia l fo r man' s earl y stag e o f development. Me n once though t i n image s rathe r tha n i n concepts , an d "attribute d sense s and passion s t o bodie s a s vas t a s sky , se a an d earth " (402) . Thinkin g i n images i s wha t Vic o call s "poeti c logic. " Thi s wa s th e patter n o f imaging, speaking , an d though t i n th e Ag e of Heroes . Th e earl y stag e o f mankind i s simila r t o th e earl y stag e o f individua l man . Th e mos t sublime labo r o f poetr y i s t o giv e sens e an d passio n t o insensat e things ; and i t i s characteristi c o f childre n t o tak e inanimat e thing s i n thei r hands an d tal k t o the m i n plays a s i f the y wer e livin g persons . Thi s philologico-philosophical axio m prove s t o u s tha t i n th e "world' s child hood me n wer e b y natur e sublim e poets " (186—187). In Vico' s view , a discussio n o f th e metaphor' s origi n an d it s natur e cannot b e kep t apart . Metaphors , an d therefor e als o images , ar e docu ments o f th e earl y histor y o f man ; the y mus t no t b e rea d a s skillfull y contrived expression s o f idea s essentiall y i n contras t with , o r alie n to , the structur e o f th e expressiv e media . Thi s ma y b e th e cas e wit h arbitrary signs . In metapho r an d image , s o Vic o keep s stressing , ther e i s no intrinsi c tensio n betwee n th e conten t tha t i s being conveye d an d th e shape i n whic h i t i s expressed , betwee n th e ide a an d th e form . Th e image i s no t th e passiv e reflectio n o f a n alie n for m impose d b y th e senses; th e passiv e momen t o f "pur e sensation"—whic h i s the presup position o f a dualisti c conceptio n o f th e image—i s wholl y lackin g i n the lif e o f th e huma n spirit , a s Vic o conceive s it . Th e imag e i s rathe r the impositio n b y th e min d o r spiri t o f it s ow n form . Th e imag e i s therefore a n imag e no t o f a n alie n object , o f a n externa l world , bu t o f the spiri t itself . Primitiv e me n "gav e th e thing s the y wondere d a t 10

The Early Eighteenth Century substantial bein g afte r thei r ow n ideas " (37^) . Th e firs t me n "create d things accordin g t o thei r ow n ideas, " an d the y di d s o "b y virtu e o f a wholly corporea l imagination " (376). I n all thes e passage s th e notio n o f "image" is no t sufficientl y distinct : whil e i t alway s mean s th e imag e w e see i n our mind, i t ofte n ma y als o mean th e imag e carve d i n som e kin d of materia l substance . Ho w close , indeed , Vico' s concep t o f "image " is to a work o f art we ca n see i n what h e says about th e origin of idolatry . In the course of discussing "poetics" he says, basing himself on a passage of th e Churc h Fathe r Lactance, 9 tha t th e first men "invente d th e gods" (382). Invention , whic h i s practicall y synonymou s wit h imaging , wit h "poetic" creation, i s thus vali d bot h fo r wha t th e min d see s an d for th e material objec t tha t ca n b e adored. Vico take s myths an d fables seriously . The y ar e the creation s o f early human consciousness , an d eve n i f the y ar e no w dea d an d fossilized , they ar e fo r u s th e riches t sourc e o f knowin g an d understandin g th e collective imaginatio n of mankind. "Fable s are true histories of customs" (7), an d hence "mytholog y i s th e first science t o b e learnt" (^1). Vic o is aware o f th e difficultie s o f suc h a study. I t may b e "beyon d ou r powe r to ente r int o th e vas t imaginatio n o f thes e first men, whos e mind s wer e not i n th e leas t abstract , refined , o r spiritualized , becaus e the y wer e entirely immerse d i n th e senses , buffete d b y th e passions , burie d i n th e

body" ( 378).

Nothing tell s u s so muc h abou t ma n as his imager y o f th e gods. Vic o is o f cours e concerne d wit h th e motive s tha t cause d peopl e t o creat e their gods . Thes e motives , h e believes , ar e mainl y "terro r an d fear " (382). Fo r ou r purpose , however , th e motive s ar e les s importan t tha n the way s i n whic h th e god s wer e created . Wha t wa s th e proces s b y which me n imagine d an d shape d th e gods ? A grea t dea l o f th e Scienza nuova i s devote d t o unriddlin g an d describin g thi s process . "Thi s i s th e way i n whic h th e theologica l poet s apprehende d Jove , Cybel e o r Bere cynthia . . . a t first mutely pointing , [they ] explained the m a s substances of th e sky , th e eart h an d th e sea , whic h the y imagine d t o b e animat e divinities an d wer e therefor e tru e t o thei r sense s i n believin g the m t o be gods. " But ca n w e giv e t o thes e being s a specific form ? The castin g of the gods i n a concrete shap e Vic o sees a s a process of personification , a proces s achieve d primaril y b y mean s o f th e imagination . Thi s proces s 11

Modern Theories of Art is actuall y th e painter' s domain . "Fo r whe n w e wis h t o giv e utteranc e to ou r understandin g o f spiritua l things, " w e rea d i n th e Scienza nuova, "we mus t see k ai d fro m ou r imaginatio n t o explai n the m and , lik e painters, for m huma n image s o f them " (402) . It i s characteristi c o f primitiv e me n a s wel l a s o f childre n t o gras p the abstrac t b y projectin g i t i n a concret e form . Or , a s Vic o explain s it , "the first men , th e children , a s i t were , o f th e huma n race , no t bein g able t o for m intelligibl e clas s concept s o f things , ha d a natura l nee d t o create poeti c characters ; that is , imaginative clas s concepts o r universals , to which , a s t o certai n model s o r idea l portraits , t o reduc e al l th e particular specie s whic h resemble d them " (209) . H e complain s o f thos e scholars wh o conside r th e origi n o f letter s a s a separat e questio n fro m that o f th e origi n o f language , "wherea s th e tw o wer e b y natur e conjoined." Al l nations , Vic o believes , "bega n t o spea k b y writing, " tha t is, t o us e moder n parlance , b y formin g concrete , visuall y perceptibl e shapes. " 'Character ' . . . mean s idea , form , model ; an d certainl y poeti c characters cam e befor e thos e o f articulat e sounds " (429) . Th e intuitiv e visual configuratio n precede s th e conventionall y contrive d alphabet . Considering hi s view s o n th e natur e an d origi n o f letters , i t seem s natural tha t Vic o shoul d devot e seriou s attentio n t o hieroglyphs . I n th e Scienza nuova, hieroglyphs ar e frequentl y mentioned , an d thi s shoul d no t surprise a studen t o f earl y eighteenth-centur y culture . I t wa s precisel y in th e earl y eighteent h centur y tha t a significan t spli t i n th e traditiona l interpretation o f hieroglyph s wa s becomin g manifest . O n th e on e hand , the traditiona l Neoplatoni c explanatio n o f Egyptia n sacre d writin g wa s further elaborate d (especiall y b y th e follower s o f th e grea t seventeenth century schola r Athanasiu s Kircher) , but , o n th e other , thes e inherited , almost sacrosanc t reading s wer e bein g violently attacke d b y the forerun ners o f moder n scientifi c Egyptology . Renaissanc e humanism , a s w e know, regarde d hieroglyph s a s a typ e o f secre t writing , employe d b y the sage s o f a mythica l past . B y usin g thi s secre t scrip t th e illuminat i ensured tha t th e divin e knowledg e woul d b e transmitte d t o th e chose n few who , i n futur e ages , woul d b e worthy , an d able , t o deciphe r th e signs, an d a t th e sam e tim e the y safeguarde d th e messag e agains t profanation b y th e undeserving. 10 B y Vico' s tim e thi s vie w wa s begin ning t o b e undermined . I shall her e onl y mentio n Bernar d d e Montfau 12

The Early Eighteenth Century con who , i n th e fifteen volume s o f hi s L'Antiquite expliquee (1719—1724) , not only include d a n enormou s amoun t o f materia l bu t als o brok e wit h the Neoplatoni c scholar s o f th e Renaissanc e i n hi s refusa l t o admir e Egyptian wisdom . Egyptia n religio n h e regarde d a s monstrous , an d Egyptian ar t a s horrible. 11 H e refuse d t o tr y t o interpre t hieroglyph s and eve n maintaine d tha t the y coul d no t b e interprete d wit h an y accuracy. Montfauco n gav e voic e t o a new spirit , a spirit tha t woul d b e identified wit h eighteenth-centur y rationalism . I n th e attitud e h e rep resents, archaeological eruditio n wen t han d in hand with sobe r criticis m and emotional disenchantment . Vico seem s practicall y untouche d b y th e ne w critica l spirit . H e wa s aware o f th e ne w approac h t o hieroglyphs , an d i n hi s first, juvenil e essay, De antiquissima Italorum sapientia (1710) , he referre d a t least onc e t o Montfaucon, thoug h h e di d no t assimilat e Montfaucon' s exac t scholar ship.12 Ye t intellectuall y h e i s muc h close r t o th e traditiona l type ; hi s affinity t o suc h thinker s an d scholar s a s Ficino , Pieri o Valeriano , an d Kircher i s manifest . Bu t hi s vie w o f th e natur e an d functio n o f hiero glyphs dramaticall y contradict s wha t Renaissanc e humanist s believe d and hel d a s undoubte d truth . H e vigorousl y attacke d thei r centra l ide a about sacre d an d secre t writin g b y denyin g tha t hieroglyph s wer e th e formulation o f esoteric knowledg e an d wisdom. "Th e matchless wisdo m of th e ancients , s o ardentl y sough t afte r fro m Plat o t o Bacon' s De sapientia veterum" wa s n o esoteri c wisdo m a t all . "Whenc e i t wil l b e found . . . tha t al l th e mysti c meaning s o f lofty philosoph y attribute d b y the learne d t o th e Gree k fable s an d th e Egyptia n hieroglyph s ar e a s impertinent a s th e historica l meaning s the y bot h mus t hav e ha d ar e natural" (384). Students blindl y followin g th e principle s an d assumption s o f ration alistic interpretatio n (an d onl y suc h ca n Vico hav e mean t when , i n thi s context, h e spok e o f "scholars" ) themselve s creat e th e difficult y the y encounter i n thei r searc h for th e origi n o f letters. Thei r fault i s analysis; they separat e spoke n languag e fro m writing . B y s o doing , Vic o i s convinced, the y sho w tha t the y understan d neithe r th e natur e o f ma n nor the character of his early history. "Thus , in their hopeless ignoranc e of th e wa y i n whic h language s an d letter s began , scholar s hav e failed t o understand ho w th e first nations though t i n poeti c characters , spok e i n '3

Modern Theories of Art fables, an d wrot e i n hieroglyphs' ' (429) . Th e writin g i n hieroglyph s i s not th e resul t o f lon g deliberatio n aime d a t preventin g secre t wisdo m from reachin g th e unworthy ; i t i s rathe r a for m o f direc t expression , intuitively graspe d b y me n wh o ar e abl e t o contemplat e ideas . S o natural i s th e contemplatio n o f idea s tha t th e languag e "hieroglyphic , sacred o r divine " wa s th e first languag e o f th e Egyptians , th e on e dominating th e first ag e i n history . Onl y afte r tha t cam e th e languag e that Vic o calls "symbolic, " tha t is , the expressio n whos e shap e doe s no t fuse wit h th e contents . Symboli c languag e i s secondary , derived , wherea s hieroglyphic i s primordial. I t i s endowed wit h universa l validity , an d w e find i t als o outsid e Egypt . "Th e divin e fable s o f th e Greek s an d Latin s must hav e been th e tru e first hieroglyphs , or sacre d o r divin e characters , corresponding t o thos e o f th e Egyptians " (437). If we disentangl e wha t Vic o says about hieroglyph s fro m th e languag e and mode s o f expressio n o f hi s time , an d translat e i t int o moder n parlance, som e conclusion s woul d see m t o impos e themselves . First , th e hieroglyph i s conceive d a s a concret e shap e (o r physica l object ) tha t makes a n ide a manifest . Ou r mod e o f experiencin g th e hieroglyp h i s probably bes t describe d a s direc t contemplatio n o f ideas ; i n othe r words, i t i s a sensuou s experienc e o f a n abstrac t universal . Tha t experi ence i s no t aide d b y an y contrive d symbolism . Th e abilit y t o contem plate ideas , Vico wa s convinced , i s innate i n man . Bot h th e creatio n an d the readin g o f th e hieroglyp h occur s naturally . Bu t wha t i s suc h a n object, th e moder n reade r wonders , othe r tha n a wor k o f art ? Wha t i s the mod e o f experiencin g th e hieroglyph , a s describe d b y Vico , bu t a kind o f aestheti c experienc e i n fron t o f a wor k o f art ? I n fact , i n Vico' s doctrine th e hieroglyph , thoug h no t full y identica l wit h a pictur e o r a statue, come s ver y clos e t o bein g a work o f art . A secon d conclusio n reache s stil l further . Vic o conceive d o f visua l experience (suc h a s th e contemplatio n o f idea s a s a physica l act ) an d creative activit y i n th e fields o f visuall y perceptibl e form s (suc h a s hieroglyphs) a s th e way s o f perceptio n an d expressio n typica l o f man kind's earlies t stage . (Th e awarenes s o f thi s intrinsi c relationshi p i s reinforced b y th e clai m tha t image s ar e th e natura l mean s o f expressio n employed b y children. ) Now , visua l experienc e an d visua l shape s woul d also see m t o includ e th e visua l arts . B y firmly situatin g th e visua l art s i n 14

The Early Eighteenth Century that first stag e o f mankin d (an d man) , Vico anticipate s a n importan t trend i n philosophica l aesthetic s tha t cam e t o th e for e tw o generations later, aroun d th e tur n o f th e century . Philosopher s o f th e Romanti c period wh o continue d i n th e sam e vei n (thoug h no t necessaril y basin g themselves upon , o r even acquainte d with , Vico' s writings ) mad e paint ing an d sculptur e th e primeva l arts . I n thei r attempt s t o combin e th e arts int o a comprehensive, structure d system , the y mad e th e visua l art s the mos t typica l representative s o f th e earlies t stage s o f mankind , an d considered the m als o the most primitive—becaus e th e most bodil y and material—of th e arts. Vico's significanc e fo r moder n though t o n th e art s ha s stil l anothe r focus. Her e to o h e only anticipated , i n broa d genera l lines , wha t wa s brought int o th e ope n b y late r generations , bu t h e seem s t o hav e foreshadowed certai n centra l ideas . H e wa s implicitl y concerne d no t only wit h th e artist' s creativ e activity , bu t als o wit h th e proble m o f th e spectator who experiences a work o f art. Once more I should emphasiz e that h e doe s no t spea k explicitl y o f experiencin g a paintin g o r a piec e of sculpture . Wha t h e ha s i n min d i s ho w w e understan d th e whol e world tha t human s hav e shaped , ye t obviousl y thi s als o include s th e understanding o f work s o f art . A grea t par t o f th e moder n attemp t t o analyze an d explai n ou r experiencin g o f work s o f ar t seem s t o b e predicted i n the though t o f this strange Neapolita n professo r o f rhetori c in the earl y eighteenth century . Vico, i s ha s recentl y bee n said, 13 "virtuall y invente d th e concep t o f understanding—of wha t Dilthe y an d other s cal l 'Verstehen. ' Other s before him , philologist s o r historian s o r jurists , ma y hav e ha d inkling s of it ; Vico bring s i t t o light. " Th e concep t o f understandin g th e manmade worl d ha s man y aspect s altogethe r beyon d th e scop e o f th e present stud y (as , fo r instance , th e differenc e betwee n understandin g objects mad e b y natur e an d thos e mad e b y man) ; her e I shal l onl y briefly not e suc h feature s a s may bea r on th e understandin g o f art. Vico's theor y o f understandin g i s derive d fro m hi s concep t o f pri meval creation . Earl y gentile people , w e know , "wer e poet s wh o spok e in poeti c characters. " Vic o himsel f declare d thi s insigh t t o b e "th e master ke y t o thi s Science, " tha t is , th e Scienza nuova (34) . Now , i t i s these "poeti c characters " tha t w e discove r an d interpre t whe n w e rea d i£

Modern Theories of Art poetry o r experienc e an y othe r ar t form . W e d o s o b y virtu e o f a vivi d capacity fo r imaginativ e reconstruction , fo r conceivin g th e modificazioni of th e huma n mind , a capacity tha t i s innate i n us . W e understan d wha t human imaginatio n ha s shape d i n th e pas t b y activatin g ou r ow n imagination, whic h i s a s huma n a s wa s tha t o f th e creators . W e ar e sentient beings , an d w e therefor e hav e thi s basi c understandin g o f creatures wh o wer e simila r t o ourselves , an d o f wha t the y produced . Creative imaginatio n plays a dominan t rol e i n huma n consciousness ; i t is activ e bot h i n th e creato r o f a wor k o f ar t an d i n th e spectator , reader, o r listene r wh o experience s an d understand s it . Obviousl y thi s is also vali d i n grasping mode s o f feelin g an d expressin g them . Though littl e i s her e sai d explicitl y abou t th e arts , i t i s obviou s tha t Vico anticipate d certai n centra l feature s o f th e theorie s tha t attemp t t o explain aestheti c experienc e a s a proces s o f empathy , o f makin g th e spectator identif y wit h wha t h e perceives . 2. DUBOS : TH E SUBLIMATIO N O F TH E PASSION S

The vas t an d complicate d landscap e tha t aestheti c though t o f th e earl y eighteenth centur y offer s t o th e moder n studen t i s extremel y varie d i n feature. Som e o f th e figures (suc h a s Vic o an d Shaftesbury ) ar e rathe r unusual, har d t o fit int o a genera l pattern , whethe r o f a perio d o r a traditional school . Bu t i f on e wishe s t o ge t a panorami c vie w o f wha t the philosopher s o f th e tim e though t abou t ou r arts , i t wil l no t d o t o concentrate ou r attentio n o n suc h individua l thinkers . The y wer e out standing, b u t — a t least , t o som e degree—the y wer e als o isolated . Ahead o f thei r time , the y ma y revea l t o th e historia n (wh o ha s th e advantage o f hindsight ) wha t thei r perio d hel d i n stor e fo r th e future , but thei r impac t wa s experience d onl y later : Shaftesbury' s influenc e i s largely fel t onl y i n th e latte r hal f o f th e eighteent h century , partl y through it s stimulatio n o f Germa n philosophy ; Vico' s impac t become s discernible onl y i n th e nineteent h an d eve n th e twentiet h centuries . When w e as k wha t wa s th e aestheti c though t dominatin g th e first hal f of th e eighteent h century , ho w tha t ag e sa w itself , w e hav e t o tur n t o different authors . They ma y make fo r les s fascinating (thoug h sometime s easier) readin g tha n th e isolate d geniuses , bu t the y reflec t mor e clearl y 16

The Early Eighteenth Century what wa s though t a t th e tim e itself . Author s wh o expres s a commonl y held opinion , i t ma y b e wort h adding , ar e no t necessaril y devoi d o f originality; i n fact , I shal l tr y t o sho w tha t wha t the y sa y ca n b e ne w and o f grea t import . I t i s onl y tha t thei r originalit y i s les s tha t o f a n individual tha n tha t o f a society o r cultur e a s a whole. Fo r reflectio n o n painting i n th e earl y eighteent h century , th e Abb e Dubo s wil l b e a good witness. Is it permissibl e t o coun t Dubo s amon g th e philosophers ? The answe r is far fro m obvious . Measure d b y th e yardstic k o f Descarte s o r Spinoza , Dubos canno t b e considere d a philosophe r a t all . H e di d no t tr y hi s hand a t an y o f th e philosopher' s traditiona l tasks : h e di d no t dea l wit h metaphysics, th e theor y o f knowledge , o r ethics . Whe n h e sense s a philosophical difficulty , i t ha s recentl y bee n said, 14 h e i s incline d t o shrug, o r t o chang e th e subject . An d ye t h e ha s bee n called , no t altogether withou t justification , u an initiato r o f modern thought. " Jean Baptiste Dubo s (1670-1742) , a priest (thoug h h e becam e Abb e onl y lat e in life) , wa s als o a diplomati c envoy , a scholar , a writer , an d a ma n o f letters. A prolifi c author , h e publishe d extensiv e studie s i n man y fields of scholarl y endeavor . H e wa s a literar y critic , a theoreticia n o f politic s and th e state , and a historian o f the emergenc e o f the Frenc h monarchy . He himsel f ma y wel l hav e see n hi s historica l researche s a s th e mos t important par t o f hi s work . W e shoul d ad d her e that , whateve r els e h e was, Dubo s ha d n o concret e experienc e whatsoeve r o f art ; h e move d among man y people , bu t thes e wer e mainl y scholars ; hi s connection s with artist s see m t o hav e bee n nonexistent . In th e mids t o f hi s hecti c diplomati c activit y Dubo s foun d tim e t o write a long wor k o n aesthetic s an d ar t theory , th e Reflexions critiques sur la poesie et la peinture, appearin g anonymousl y (a s th e custo m was ) i n 1719. Thi s boo k mus t b e on e o f th e larges t work s o n th e subjec t published i n th e entir e eighteent h century . Th e tw o volume s o f th e original editio n hol d som e 1,20 0 pages . Dubos' s Reflexions critiques is certainly on e o f th e mos t prominen t production s i n th e histor y o f eighteenth-century ar t theory . It s impac t ma y b e guesse d b y reviewin g the man y edition s o f th e wor k a s wel l a s b y recallin g it s mor e distin guished readers . Durin g th e author' s lifetim e th e wor k wa s reprinte d twice, an d befor e th e en d o f th e eighteent h centur y i t ha d bee n 17

Modern Theories of Art reprinted no t les s tha n sixtee n times—n o mea n achievemen t eve n fo r much late r periods . Amon g th e reader s o f th e Reflexions critiques wa s Voltaire, wh o considere d i t "th e mos t usefu l boo k eve r writte n o n thi s matter i n an y nation. " I n Englan d th e boo k wa s discusse d b y Edmun d Burke, th e statesma n an d author , an d b y Davi d Hume , th e philosopher . In German y a larg e par t o f th e wor k (th e las t third ) wa s translate d int o German b y non e othe r tha n Gotthol d Ephrai m Lessing , wh o als o referred t o i t i n bot h hi s Hamburgische Dramaturgie an d hi s Laocodn.15 Clearly w e ar e entitle d t o se e i n Dubos ' Reflexions critiques a n importan t representative o f a central tren d i n earl y eighteenth-centur y though t o n the arts . A carefu l reade r o f th e Reflexions critiques cannot escap e sensin g a strong contradictio n pervadin g th e work . O n th e on e hand , Dubos' s style o f though t an d manne r o f presentatio n ar e altogethe r traditional . There ar e th e reference s t o Plin y an d Quintilia n (sometime s withou t quoting th e names) , unavoidabl e i n ar t literatur e fo r man y centurie s before ou r autho r wrot e hi s book ; ther e ar e th e equall y unavoidabl e references t o th e authorit y o f Plato , Aristotle, an d othe r ancien t author s (particularly Plutarch) ; an d ther e are , o f course , th e inevitabl e compari sons o f literatur e an d paintin g tha t for m par t o f th e grea t Horatia n tradition i n Europea n letters . Fo r Dubo s thes e feature s ar e mor e tha n just a matte r o f externa l form ; the y indicat e hi s source s a s wel l a s hi s commitment t o th e humanisti c traditio n tha t ha d dominate d Europea n thought sinc e th e Renaissance . Thes e feature s als o sho w th e moder n historian wha t i n fac t wa s Dubos' s fram e o f referenc e i n matter s o f aesthetic concept s an d doctrines . Whe n on e get s behin d thi s curtain , however, on e encounters themes , opinions, and idea s tha t d o no t belon g to th e humanisti c tradition , an d sometime s clas h wit h it s fundamenta l beliefs an d it s spirit . Dubo s himsel f ma y wel l hav e fel t thi s contradic tion. Severa l time s h e seem s t o mak e th e attemp t t o harmoniz e th e component part s o f hi s doctrine . Tha t h e doe s no t succee d ca n hardl y surprise th e historian ; th e conflic t o f variou s element s i n hi s theor y ma y be see n a s a hallmar k o f a n autho r wh o i s th e spokesma n o f a transi tional period . Dubo s wa s suc h a one . In attemptin g t o discus s thes e conflict s w e shoul d remember , first, that i n th e Reflexions critiques Dubo s doe s no t dea l wit h comprehensiv e 18

The Early Eighteenth Century ideas o f aesthetics ; o n th e contrary , h e i s altogethe r committe d t o th e analysis o f tw o individual , specifi c arts , poetry an d painting. A s we shal l presently see , h e i s no t primaril y concerne d wit h wha t th e tw o art s have i n commo n (tha t is , wit h th e majo r them e o f th e Horatia n ut pictura poesis) bu t rathe r wit h wha t make s eac h o f the m differen t fro m the othe r an d thu s unique . N o wonder , then , tha t h e devote s a great deal o f attention t o wha t w e woul d no w cal l th e "medium " of each art, to it s particula r structure s an d effects , an d ha d i n fac t mor e t o sa y about thi s subjec t tha n mos t o f hi s predecessors . I n concentratin g o n the particula r arts—rathe r tha n o n th e genera l aesthetic s tha t wa s i n the air—Dubo s followe d th e traditiona l typ e o f ar t theory . I n spit e o f all this , however , hi s poin t o f departur e differ s fro m tha t o f traditiona l art theory. I t is not th e performanc e o f th e artist' s job tha t occupies hi s mind; the worksho p experience , an d th e practica l task s emergin g fro m it, ar e no t par t o f hi s background . Hi s basi c them e i s th e audience . Fo r our purpose , i t i s th e spectato r wh o look s a t a painting . The questio n underlying Dubos' s whol e doctrin e i s ho w th e spectato r experience s the wor k o f art. The spectator—an d i n a broade r sense , th e audienc e i n general — did no t invad e ar t theor y al l o f a sudden . Tha t artist s wer e alway s aware, thoug h i n different way s and to varyin g degrees, of th e spectato r and reflecte d o n hi m i s a truis m tha t nee d no t b e belabore d here . A t least sinc e th e teacher s o f ancien t rhetori c ha d urge d th e orato r alway s to have his audience i n mind, th e public was, implicitly o r more overtly , present i n th e theorie s o f th e variou s arts . W e hav e see n tha t i n th e Renaissance, wit h th e ful l evolutio n o f ar t literature , th e spectato r became a facto r openl y determinin g theorie s o f painting . I n th e six teenth century , "ar t theory, " instea d o f bein g exclusivel y a theor y fo r the artist wit h th e ai m o f instructin g hi m i n hi s work, becam e a branch of literatur e tha t explaine d th e wor k o f art , an d possibl y als o it s production, t o nonartists , t o th e genera l public. 16 Bu t al l thi s wa s undertaken fro m th e artist' s poin t o f view . Eve n whe n th e genera l public wa s addressed, th e author s o f ar t theoretica l treatise s alway s ha d the artist' s tas k i n mind . Th e questio n behin d al l thei r effort s ca n b e stated a s follows : wha t d o 1 , the creativ e artist , do , wha t d o I have t o know, an d what means must I employ t o represent natur e (or any other 19

Modern Theories of Art subject) appropriatel y an d t o reac h m y audienc e an d evok e it s prope r response? In Dubos' s wor k thi s i s radicall y changed . Th e artist' s need s hav e receded; the y see m t o hav e disappeare d a s th e principa l subjec t matter , or a s th e leadin g question , o f ar t theory . Wha t i s no w aske d is : ho w and wh y doe s th e spectato r enjo y th e wor k o f ar t h e i s lookin g a t (o r the poe m h e i s reading) ? B y placin g th e spectato r a t th e cente r o f hi s analysis Dubo s i s anticipatin g a larg e par t o f th e moder n discussio n o f what i s no w calle d "aestheti c experience " a s a n independen t an d important subjec t matte r i n philosophica l thought . Th e spectato r a s th e point o f departur e fo r al l reflection s determine s th e structur e o f Du bos's doctrin e i n th e sam e wa y tha t th e spectato r dominate s a grea t deal o f moder n though t o n th e arts . Dubos actuall y begin s hi s Reflexions critiques wit h a n analysi s o f th e spectator. I n a brie f introduction— a tex t tha t bear s th e clea r imprin t of a somewha t simplisti c Enlightenmen t philosophy—h e explain s th e function an d significanc e o f th e art s a s derive d fro m a general concep t of man' s nature . Man , h e claims , experience s pleasur e onl y whe n h e i s satisfying a need. On e huma n nee d i s to kee p our mind s busy . Boredom , resulting fro m no t occupyin g ou r minds , ma y lea d t o difficul t an d dangerous situations . "Boredo m i s s o painfu l tha t a man wil l frequentl y undertake th e mos t exhaustin g labor s t o spar e himsel f thi s torment. " The need , o r desire , t o kee p ou r mind s an d soul s occupie d i s the reaso n for ou r bein g s o profoundl y attracte d b y spectacle s o f al l kinds , partic ularly b y thos e evokin g powerfu l emotions . "I n al l countries, " say s Dubos, "peopl e will g o t o watc h th e mos t horribl e spectacles, " suc h a s the condemne d bein g le d t o th e gallows . Thi s leanin g o f huma n natur e is also th e reaso n wh y th e Roman s invente d th e fight betwee n gladiator s and turne d i t int o a spectacle. No r d o such crue l "performances " belon g to th e pas t only . A bullfigh t ma y see m les s perturbin g o r inflammator y than a fight betwee n gladiators , bu t i t i s als o dangerous ; man y a bullfighter ha s los t hi s lif e whil e combatin g th e furiou s beast . An d ye t "Spaniards o f al l walk s o f lif e watc h thes e dangerou s displays." 17 I n these words , Dubo s echoes—possibl y withou t bein g awar e o f i t — t h e Church Fathers ' stron g rejectio n o f th e arena . I t i s enoug h t o thin k o f 20

The Early Eighteenth Century Tertullian's passionat e invectiv e agains t th e circus, 18 o r o f St . Augus tine's fascinating descriptio n o f a huge audienc e i n the aren a held i n the grip of mass hysteria. Bu t Dubo s know s tha t the dange r of being carried away b y passion s i s universal . "Th e allur e o f th e emotion s make s th e most good-hearted o f nation s forge t th e first principles o f humanity. " It i s her e tha t ar t come s in . Fro m th e huma n conditio n jus t de scribed, fro m tha t dange r cause d b y emotions , Dubo s derive s th e function o f art . "Coul d no t art, " h e asks , "fin d a wa y t o forestal l th e evil consequence s whic h mos t pleasan t passion s bea r with them ? Coul d it no t produc e object s whic h woul d arous e artificia l passion s capabl e o f occupying u s fo r th e moment , bu t no t involvin g an y rea l sufferin g o r emotion?" An d h e answers : "Poetr y an d paintin g hav e achieve d thi s objective."19 Ho w doe s ar t achiev e thi s end ? I shoul d like , first, t o present Dubos ' view s o n th e subject , and , second , t o mak e som e brie f observations o n th e historica l significanc e o f hi s view s an d o n th e meaning o f some o f the term s h e employs . To successfull y forestal l th e evi l consequence s o f th e passions—thi s is th e cornerston e o f Dubos ' psycholog y o f th e beholder—w e woul d have t o hav e " a mean s o f separatin g th e evi l consequence s o f mos t o f the passion s fro m thos e [effects ] tha t ar e agreeable. " Ther e is suc h a means, Dubo s believes , an d i t i s wha t h e call s th e "artificia l passions. " The lor d an d maste r o f "artificia l passions " i s th e artist . "Th e painte r and poe t excit e i n u s thes e artificia l passion s b y presentin g t o u s imitations o f th e object s tha t ar e capabl e o f excitin g ou r rea l pas sions.' 20 So fa r Dubo s seem s t o follo w th e traditiona l pattern . Tha t w e understand a wor k o f ar t b y empathy , an d tha t th e artist' s tas k i s t o evoke ou r emotions , wer e idea s accepte d since Alberti' s On Painting o f i43£. Bu t i n th e whol e traditio n fro m th e earl y Renaissanc e t o th e seventeenth centur y i t wa s als o accepted tha t th e emotion s th e paintin g evoked were th e very same that th e object depicte d woul d have evoked. This wa s th e powe r an d th e dange r inheren t i n images . Her e Dubo s introduces a n importan t transformation . The "artificia l passion " i s no t only artificiall y evoke d (b y a representatio n instea d o f b y th e figure o r object itself) , i t i s a weakened , pale r passion , manageabl e precisel y 21

Modern Theories of Art because i t lack s th e vigo r an d powe r o f th e passio n i n it s ful l strength . "Artificial passions " ar e passion s o f a differen t degree , an d mayb e o f a different sort , tha n rea l ones . Let u s mentio n a singl e example , on e tha t Dubo s himsel f adduces . To sho w tha t "artificia l passions " diffe r fro m rea l ones , ou r autho r describes a famou s paintin g b y Charle s Lebrun , th e presiden t o f th e Academy o f Ar t i n Pari s wh o playe d suc h a n importan t par t i n formu lating th e academi c ideolog y tha t ar t aime d a t movin g th e beholder. 21 The paintin g i s The Massacre of the Innocents, an d Dubos , a t th e beginnin g of hi s Reflexions critiques, discusses it s impac t o n th e beholder . I n tha t great canvas , we se e terribl e scenes , such a s "th e franti c soldier s cuttin g the throat s o f th e childre n i n th e lap s o f thei r bleedin g mothers. " Ye t Le Brun' s painting , wher e w e se e th e renderin g o f thi s tragi c event , s o Dubos continues , "disturb s u s an d move s us , bu t i t leave s n o trouble some ide a i n ou r soul : thi s paintin g excite s ou r compassio n withou t really afflictin g us. " A fe w line s later , Dubo s use s thi s vivi d metaphor : "The afflictio n is , as i t were , onl y o n th e surfac e o f ou r heart." 22 We shal l presentl y com e bac k t o th e questio n o f wh y th e emotion s evoked b y a wor k o f ar t ar e mil d an d weakened—harmless , i f I ma y say s o — , an d shal l no w ask : wha t kin d o f emotio n does the spectato r feel whe n lookin g a t a wor k o f art ? Th e answe r woul d see m t o b e a s clear a s i t i s new: th e emotio n prevailin g whe n w e loo k a t a work o f ar t is simpl y pleasure . T o pu t i t crudely , Dubo s come s clos e t o describin g art a s entertainment . Le t u s liste n t o hi s somewha t elevate d language : "The pleasur e on e feel s i n lookin g a t th e imitation s tha t painter s an d poets kno w ho w t o mak e o f object s tha t ar e ap t t o evok e i n u s passion s had the y bee n presente d t o u s i n realit y i s a pure pleasure." 23 One ca n hardl y exaggerat e th e revolutionar y natur e o f Dubos' s notion. T o appreciat e ho w ne w hi s idea s wer e an d ho w profoundl y the y upset a n ol d an d firmly establishe d traditiona l view , on e shoul d kee p i n mind tha t throughou t Europea n histor y ther e wer e constantl y recurrin g attempts t o provid e a comprehensiv e "justification " o f th e arts , an d particularly a vindicatio n o f paintin g an d sculpture . Suc h conceptua l vindications naturall y als o determine d view s o n th e specifi c function s o f the art s an d o n th e kin d o f job th e artis t shoul d perform . A n exhaustiv e 22

The Early Eighteenth Century presentation o f thes e attempt s woul d fill anothe r volume . Her e i t wil l suffice t o recal l a truism, namely , tha t the great world view s a t differen t periods trie d t o justif y art , an d t o determin e it s function , accordin g t o their ow n need s an d beliefs. A s an example, w e ma y recal l th e attempt s made i n th e Middl e Age s t o mak e ar t serv e religiou s end s b y leadin g the spectator' s min d "upwards. " Anothe r full y articulat e medieva l at tempt t o justify th e ar t of paintin g was , as we know , t o conside r image s as a "script o f th e illiterate, " tha t is , t o mak e th e didacti c functio n th e basis o f art . T o b e sure , moder n scholars , particularl y Meye r Schapiro , have show n tha t i n medieval testimonie s w e als o encounter th e expres sion o f shee r jo y experience d i n lookin g a t preciou s an d beautifu l artifacts. Bu t eve n wher e suc h experience s ar e recorded , th e explici t aim of ar t is not see n a s one o f giving pleasure . In th e Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e periods , th e urg e t o justif y ar t b y relating i t t o som e centra l valu e i t supposedl y serve d (an d whic h differed fro m ar t itself ) wa s eve n intensified . I n th e fifteenth century , the belie f prevaile d tha t on e o f th e mai n value s ar t serve d wa s discov ering th e trut h an d understandin g th e worl d o f nature ; the wor k o f art contains, o r lead s u s to , a scientifi c cognitio n o f th e world . I n th e sixteenth century , particularl y i n th e Counter-Reformation , paintin g was ofte n justifie d o n th e groun d tha t i t provide d a powerful stimulu s to th e emotions , an d coul d thu s b e employe d t o intensif y religiou s experiences an d beliefs . Ar t coul d als o b e considere d a s containin g th e formulation o f som e ancien t wisdo m o r a s reflectin g a primary laye r i n our nature . Ho w stron g thi s vie w wa s w e ca n infe r fro m Vic o who , a s we hav e seen , hel d an d eve n furthe r develope d it . Eve n whe n i n th e seventeenth centur y Nicola s Poussi n declare d delectation t o be th e "aim " of painting , thi s ter m stil l carried , a s w e hav e trie d t o show , som e metaphysical o r even mystica l connotation. 24 What al l th e justification s listed—an d th e man y other s tha t migh t be mentioned—hav e i n commo n i s th e belie f tha t ar t i s a mean s o f achieving som e noble , elevate d aim , tha t i t i s ofte n employe d t o com e closer to som e redemptiv e end . Ther e i s a heroic air about ar t that doe s not deriv e purel y fro m th e ar t itself . I n most period s ther e woul d hav e been agreemen t tha t a picture, a statue, o r some othe r kin d o f preciou s 23

Modern Theories of Art artifact coul d als o deligh t th e spectator , bu t befor e th e eighteent h century th e pleasur e derive d fro m lookin g a t suc h a wor k woul d hav e been considere d onl y a by-product o f a striving toward s a noble r aim . After havin g reviewe d thi s awe-inspirin g backgroun d o f tw o millen nia o f continuin g reflectio n associatin g ar t wit h th e highes t o f values , one read s Dubos ' definitio n o f th e ai m o f paintin g an d poetr y wit h disappointment. Wha t th e wor k o f ar t gives us , h e claims , i s nothin g but pleasure , o r "pur e pleasure, " a s h e put s it . Th e dignit y wit h whic h art wa s endowe d b y makin g i t a road t o great aim s seem s t o b e dwarfe d here. I f th e secula r i s conceive d a s bein g o f a lowe r statu s tha n th e sacred, the n Dubo s ma y b e sai d t o introduc e a secularizatio n i n ou r seeing o f art . It ma y b e worthwhil e her e t o paus e fo r a moment , t o direc t ou r glance ahea d instea d o f backwards , an d t o as k wha t "pur e pleasure " may actuall y mean . Le t m e pu t i t i n th e simples t an d crudes t way : o f what ha s th e pleasur e w e experienc e i n lookin g a t a beautifu l pictur e been purified ? Unfortunatel y w e canno t lear n muc h fro m Dubos' s text . He speak s o f "pur e pleasure " onl y a t th e beginnin g o f th e Reflexions critiques; h e neve r define s tha t notion , perhap s becaus e h e though t i t self-evident. Keepin g i n min d ho w ne w th e concep t was , on e ca n wel l understand tha t h e ha d difficultie s i n definin g it , o r tha t h e ma y eve n not hav e bee n awar e o f wha t i t implied . Bu t fo r us , aide d b y wha t th e centuries hav e i n th e meantim e mad e clear , i t i s possible t o reconstruc t its origina l meaning , perhap s eve n beyon d wha t Dubo s himsel f wa s aware of . Now , th e onl y answe r t o th e questio n tha t offer s itsel f i s tha t the "pleasure " w e ar e speakin g o f ha s bee n purifie d o f anythin g tha t transcends th e experienc e o f lookin g a t th e picture . I n lookin g a t th e painting an d enjoyin g i t w e ar e no t concerne d wit h th e redemptio n o f our soul , o r wit h th e cognitio n o f th e world , o r wit h th e intensificatio n and orientatio n o f ou r emotions . Ou r experienc e i n fron t o f th e wor k of ar t i s fre e fro m an y ai m o r consideratio n outsid e th e aestheti c experience itself . On e canno t hel p feelin g tha t w e hav e her e a n earl y formulation o f th e ide a that , eight y year s later , Kan t wa s t o cal l "disinterested pleasure " (interesseloses Wohlgefallen), makin g i t th e corner stone o f an y moder n theor y o f aestheti c experience . 24

The Early Eighteenth Century In additio n t o causin g "pur e pleasure/ ' fo r Dubo s paintin g an d poetry fulfi l ye t anothe r function . A s w e jus t saw , ar t remove s th e danger fro m emotions . Ho w ca n ar t achiev e thi s end ? Wha t i s ther e i n their ver y natur e tha t make s i t possibl e fo r paintin g an d poetr y t o perform thi s task ? Th e passions , w e remember , ar e mad e harmles s b y draining th e intensit y ou t o f them . Dubo s doe s no t doub t tha t i n th e process th e natur e o f the particula r emotio n remain s manifest ; w e kno w that i t i s pit y o r terro r o r jo y tha t w e ar e experiencin g befor e th e picture evokin g thes e passions , bu t thei r intensit y i s so reduce d tha t w e are no t i n dange r o f bein g carrie d awa y b y them . The y ar e quasi passions. I n Dubos' s psychology , th e "artificia l passion " i s a quasi passion, a n "a s if " passion . Now, i t i s on e o f ou r author' s mos t origina l idea s tha t h e link s th e illusionary realit y create d b y ar t wit h th e unrea l natur e o f th e "artificia l passion." Th e semipassion s w e experienc e whe n w e ar e lookin g a t a work o f ar t o r readin g a poe m hav e somethin g i n commo n wit h th e semireality o f artistic portrayal . Th e pictoria l representatio n o f a natura l object i s a "copy " o f tha t object , an d copie s obe y a la w o f thei r own : they ar e alway s les s powerfu l tha n th e objec t the y ar e imitating . Dubo s quotes Quintilia n t o th e effec t tha t "everythin g tha t i s th e resemblanc e of somethin g els e mus t necessaril y b e inferio r t o tha t o f whic h i t i s a copy." 25 Dubo s quote d onl y th e first hal f o f Quintilian' s sentence . Th e other hal f reads : "a s th e shado w i s t o th e substance , th e portrai t t o th e natural face , an d th e actin g o f th e playe r t o th e rea l feeling. " Bu t although Dubo s di d no t quot e th e latte r hal f o f th e sentence , th e ide a expressed i n i t i s incorporated i n hi s thought . Ar t i s a shadow o f reality . "Even th e mos t perfec t imitation, " Dubo s explain s a t th e beginnin g o f the Reflexions critiques, "is nothin g bu t a n artificia l being , i t ha s bu t a borrowed life , whil e th e powe r an d activit y o f natur e dwel l i n th e object tha t i s imitated." 26 But a s th e "copy " o f a rea l objec t mad e b y th e artis t i s a quasi object, s o th e emotio n evoke d b y it , tha t is , the "artificia l passion, " i s a copy o f th e rea l passion , a quasi-passion. I t i s precisely a s quasi-passion s that th e emotion s ar e les s dangerou s tha n th e actua l passions , thos e encountered i n rea l life . Th e particula r natur e o f th e artisti c world — 2£

Modern Theories of Art that worl d o f semi-reality—transmit s itsel f t o th e passions , purge s them o f th e dangerou s drive s normall y inheren t i n them , an d make s them manageable . In speakin g o f "quasi-reality " o r "illusionar y reality, " w e shoul d b e careful no t t o confoun d wha t Dubo s ha s i n min d whe n h e use s thes e terms wit h wha t the y hav e no w com e t o mean . Th e creatio n o f a n illusion has , of course, fo r centurie s bee n considere d th e aim of painting , success i n creatin g suc h a n illusio n bein g on e o f th e highes t form s o f praise fo r a wor k o f art . A perfec t illusion , i t ha s bee n sai d i n variou s formulations, i s achieved whe n th e spectato r i s deceived int o takin g th e artistic representatio n o f realit y fo r realit y itself . S o deepl y roote d an d long-lived wa s thi s vie w tha t literar y topoi developed t o illustrat e it . I n antiquity an d sinc e th e earl y Renaissance , ar t literatur e ha s tol d an d retold th e storie s o f th e sparrow s pickin g a t painte d grapes , an d o f th e ancient painte r wh o los t a contes t becaus e h e trie d t o pul l a curtai n that hi s competito r painte d o n th e wall . Whethe r o r no t th e ar t o f th e different period s supporte d thi s theory , on e believe d o r a t leas t pai d li p service t o th e dogm a tha t deceivin g th e senses , creatin g th e perfec t illusion, wa s th e summi t o f th e painter' s art . Th e questio n tha t wa s asked, explicitl y o r implicitly , wa s ho w t o achiev e th e master y o f mean s that woul d mak e i t possibl e fo r th e artis t t o delud e th e spectator' s eye . Here, too , Dubo s turne d awa y fro m establishe d traditions . H e di d not g o o n asking , a s ha d bee n don e fo r centuries , ho w t o achiev e suc h deception; rathe r h e mad e i t questionabl e whethe r i t wa s desirabl e t o create a perfec t illusio n o f realit y i n a wor k o f art . H e deal s directl y with th e proble m quit e briefly , devotin g onl y a single , rathe r shor t chapter t o it . However , i t i s no t difficul t t o infe r fro m hi s genera l system tha t h e woul d conside r a perfec t illusio n undesirable . H e know s the critica l tradition , an d h e reject s it . Intelligen t peopl e hav e believed , he tell s hi s readers , "tha t illusio n i s th e first caus e o f th e pleasur e tha t spectacles an d painting s giv e us." 2 7 Thi s opinio n h e altogethe r rejects . The functio n o f art , a s w e remember , i s th e purgatio n o f th e emotions , and thi s en d i s achieve d b y presentin g image s (o r spectacles ) tha t ar e clearly recognizable , ye t devoi d o f ful l immediacy . Wer e th e pictur e s o to deceiv e th e spectato r tha t h e mistoo k th e artist' s representatio n fo r the figure o r subjec t represented , h e woul d reac t a s i f to th e rea l scene . 26

The Early Eighteenth Century What woul d the n b e th e valu e o f art ? Th e achievin g o f tota l illusio n would negat e everythin g ar t stand s for . Interestingly enough , Dubo s discusse s illusio n no t i n th e contex t o f the tw o art s t o whic h hi s boo k i s dedicated , poetr y an d painting , bu t rather i n conjunctio n wit h th e theater . Her e h e suggest s a crucia l distinction, tha t betwee n bein g move d b y wha t w e watc h an d bein g misled b y a n illusio n int o believin g w e ar e witnessin g realit y itself . Th e distinction i s no t explicitl y stated , bu t i t emerge s wit h sufficien t clarit y from th e context . "I t i s tru e tha t al l w e se e i n th e theate r converge s towards us, " Dubo s says , "bu t nothin g produce s a n illusio n t o ou r mind, becaus e everythin g reveal s itsel f a s a n imitation." 28 W e ar e moved b y wha t w e ar e watchin g o n stage , bu t w e d o no t believ e tha t we ar e watchin g a traged y i n rea l life . W e loo k aroun d i n th e theater , we kno w tha t wha t w e ar e seein g i s onl y a play , an d ye t w e continu e to deriv e pleasur e fro m th e experience . What i s true fo r th e theate r i s also vali d fo r painting . Dubo s remind s his reader s o f Raphael' s famou s fresc o i n th e Stanza d'Eliodoro , th e Expulsion ofAttila: The pictur e o f Attil a painte d b y Raphae l doe s no t deriv e it s merit s fro m it s imposing itsel f upo n u s i n orde r t o seduc e us , an d mak e u s believ e tha t w e truly se e St . Pete r an d St . Pau l hoverin g i n th e air , and , swor d i n hand , threatening tha t barbaria n kin g wh o i s surrounde d b y troop s urgin g hi m t o sack Rome. But in th e painting of which I speak Attila ingenuously represent s a frightened Scyth ; Pope Le o who explain s th e visio n t o him display s a noble confidence, an d a demeanor appropriate to his dignity; all the participants (th e other figures) look like people whom we would meet under the circumstance s Raphael assigne d t o th e differen t figures, eve n th e horse s contribut e t o th e principal action . Th e imitatio n i s so likely that, t o a large extent, i t makes th e impression th e actual event woul d hav e made on them. 29 That th e spectator' s sense s ar e no t delude d doe s no t mea n tha t th e picture lack s expression . W e kno w quit e wel l tha t wha t w e ar e lookin g at i s only a picture , a n artisti c rendering , ye t th e emotion s expresse d i n the figures affec t us , w e ar e move d b y them . Th e expressiv e effec t o f a work o f art , then , doe s no t depen d o n th e rathe r primitiv e belie f tha t we ar e witnessin g th e actua l event . The rejectio n o f th e trompe Toeil should b y n o mean s b e take n t o 27

Modern Theories of Art imply a disregar d fo r th e specifi c natur e o f eac h individua l art . O n th e contrary, i n th e Reflexions critiques Dubo s i s no t concerne d wit h genera l notions o f aesthetics , no r doe s "art " i n genera l attrac t hi s thought ; h e is concerne d wit h th e specific , uniqu e characte r an d condition s o f painting an d poetry , an d h e show s a rea l abilit y t o discriminat e wha t i s and i s no t possibl e i n on e o r th e othe r o f thes e arts . Dubos' s presenta tion an d hi s though t ar e fa r fro m consistent ; i n th e analysi s o f eac h ar t there ar e man y digression s an d eve n contradictions . Ye t th e majo r line s of hi s reasonin g emerg e quit e clearly . I n th e followin g brie f survey , I shall disregar d th e inconsistencie s i n a n attemp t t o presen t Dubos ' views a s simpl y a s possible . Dubos constantl y compare s paintin g an d poetry ; eve n wher e h e discusses eac h ar t separately , h e doe s s o i n comparativ e terms . A s I have alread y suggeste d earlie r i n thi s section , hi s leanin g i s t o separat e one ar t fro m th e other , t o activel y oppos e them , an d thu s t o brin g ou t what i s uniqu e an d unparallele d i n eac h rathe r tha n wha t the y hav e i n common. The differenc e betwee n poetr y an d paintin g i s not merel y a technica l one, base d o n material . Th e tw o art s ar e roote d i n tw o differen t dimensions o f huma n experience : th e ar t o f poetr y (an d literatur e i n general) materialize s i n a tempora l sequence , paintin g (an d th e visua l arts i n general) i n a timeless presence . Considerin g thes e basi c data , on e understands th e limitation s o f eac h ar t a s wel l a s th e powe r residin g i n each separately . Th e painte r an d th e poe t shoul d b e awar e o f thes e limitations, an d the y shoul d choos e thei r subject s accordin g t o wha t they ca n achiev e withi n limit s the y canno t change . That paintin g depict s onl y a singl e moment , on e stag e o f a n actio n that i s detache d fro m wha t ha s gon e befor e an d fro m wha t wil l com e afterwards, wherea s poetr y describe s a succession o f event s takin g plac e in time—this , o f course , i s no t a ne w idea . Eve n i f on e consider s onl y Dubos's immediat e predecessor s i n th e theor y o f th e visua l arts , lik e testimonies abound . Andr e Felibien , i n hi s Entretiens sur la vie et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres (168^) , expresse d thi s idea , and , a fe w years afte r th e publicatio n o f Dubos' s work , i t attaine d a classi c formu lation i n Lessing' s Laocoon (1766). 30 Dubos' s formulation , eve n thoug h not full y consistent , i s clear enough . "A s th e paintin g tha t represent s a n 28

The Early Eighteenth Century action doe s no t sho w mor e tha n a n instanc e o f it s (th e action's ) duration"—so h e begin s th e discussio n o f whethe r th e painte r i s abl e to appropriatel y portra y th e sublime . I t i s i n th e natur e o f th e sublime , we understan d fro m wha t Dubo s says , that event s tha t happene d i n th e past ma y she d importan t ligh t o n th e present , tha t the y ma y endo w regular objects , figures, o r situation s wit h a particula r significanc e an d make the m int o wha t the y no w are . This comple x bu t essentia l relation ship betwee n th e pas t an d th e presen t th e painte r i s unabl e t o mak e visible. H e ca n onl y sho w wha t i s present , no t wha t wa s i n th e past . Poetry, o n th e othe r hand , describe s al l th e stage s an d event s tha t ar e significant fo r th e actio n o r them e th e poe t relates . Poussin , i n th e Death of Germanicus, could represen t th e differen t kind s o f sufferin g an d affliction tha t bese t th e relative s an d friend s o f th e dyin g hero , bu t h e was unabl e t o sho w th e hero' s las t feelings , th e thought s tha t crosse d his dyin g mind. 31 A poe t ca n d o precisel y this , an d wha t h e doe s wil l affect th e spectator . A tragedy , Dubo s says , include s fifty pictures . Th e playwright present s us , successivel y a s i t were , wit h fifty pictures , an d they lea d us , ste p b y step , t o tha t extrem e emotio n tha t make s u s she d tears. 32 Dubos mention s stil l anothe r limitatio n o f painting , on e tha t scholar s do no t see m t o hav e noticed . T o pu t i t i n moder n parlance : the amoun t of ne w informatio n th e painte r i s abl e t o suppl y t o th e spectato r i s limited. To b e intelligible, the painte r mus t emplo y figures hi s spectator s already know ; h e ha s n o mean s o f providin g the m wit h fres h informa tion, o f tellin g the m wha t i s so far unknow n t o them . In Poussin' s Death of Germanicus, a female figure, place d nex t t o th e dyin g hero , cover s he r face wit h he r hands , a n expressio n o f grie f tha t surpasse s th e sorro w expressed b y al l th e othe r figures. "Thos e wh o know, " Dubo s draw s the conclusio n fro m wha t h e ha s sai d before , "tha t Germanicu s ha d a wife uniquel y attache d t o him , an d wh o receive d hi s las t breath , a s surely recogniz e he r a s Agrippina a s the antiquarian s identif y he r b y he r hairdo." Bu t wha t abou t thos e spectator s wh o d o no t kno w th e story ? Will the y b e abl e t o rea d th e pictur e appropriately ? Eve n i f Dubo s di d not mentio n thos e spectator s wh o ar e ignoran t o f th e storie s an d meanings th e artis t suggest s i n hi s work , th e moder n studen t canno t forget them . Wha t emerge s fro m Dubos' s theor y i s that paintin g canno t 29

Modern Theories of Art teach th e spectato r wha t h e doe s no t kno w already . "T o mov e us , h e (the painter ) i s confined t o availin g himsel f o f figures w e alread y know. " Painters themselve s hav e fel t thei r inferiorit y t o th e poet s i n thi s respect. Thi s i s shown b y thei r us e o f inscription s i n paintings . Whethe r they use d inscribe d banderols , a s di d th e Gothi c painters , o r foun d other forms , a s hav e certai n artists , the y ha d t o rel y o n th e writte n word, eve n i n pictures. 33 But paintin g ha s als o it s strengths . Eve n i n th e field o f providin g information, thoug h generall y inferio r t o th e spoke n o r writte n word , the visua l art s hav e som e advantage s ove r literature . Th e painte r ca n provide a grea t dea l o f informatio n a t on e an d th e sam e time , withou t being subjec t t o th e tediou s successio n b y whic h th e individua l bit s o f information ar e transmitte d i n literature . "Nothin g i s easie r t o th e intelligent painter, " Dubo s point s out , "tha n t o mak e u s gras p th e age , the temperament , th e sex , th e profession , an d eve n th e homelan d o f hi s figures, b y usin g th e dress , th e colo r o f flesh, o f th e bear d an d hair , their lengt h an d thicknes s a s wel l a s thei r natura l movement , th e habi t of th e body , o f th e face , th e shap e o f th e head , th e physiognomy , th e movements, th e colo r o f th e eyes , an d severa l othe r thing s tha t mak e the characte r o f a figure recognizable." 34 Al l thi s th e painte r give s a t once, i n on e cluster , a s i t were , whil e th e poe t mus t brea k u p th e dat a into individua l piece s o f information , no t withou t "annoyin g detail, " a s Dubos ha s it. Music altogether lack s the abilit y t o provide information. 35 Another featur e o f paintin g i s mor e importan t tha n it s abilit y t o provide information . Her e on e woul d wis h Dubo s t o b e mor e consis tent, an d mor e articulat e o n certai n issues , bu t on e canno t den y tha t what h e ha s t o sa y lead s us , stumblingl y perhaps , int o th e future . I n comparing th e tw o arts , Dubo s emphasize s tha t paintin g i s close r t o nature tha n poetr y is . " I believ e tha t th e powe r o f paintin g ove r me n i s greater tha n tha t o f poetry , an d 1 support m y feelin g b y tw o reasons . The first i s that paintin g act s upo n u s b y th e sens e o f vision. Th e secon d is that paintin g doe s no t emplo y artificia l signs , as does poetry , bu t use s natural signs." 36 Th e concep t o f "sign " i n th e contex t o f th e art s ha s a definitely moder n ring , eve n thoug h i t i s doubtful whethe r wha t Dubo s meant b y thi s ter m exactl y correspond s t o it s meanin g i n moder n thought. Wha t Dubo s surel y mean t b y i t i s tha t i n poetr y ther e i s a n

3°

The Early Eighteenth Century unbridgeable gap betwee n th e objec t describe d an d th e mean s employe d to describ e it . Whateve r poetr y relate s o r expresses—heroi c deed s o r tender love , profoun d melanchol y o r exuberan t joy—th e word s b y which th e act s o r sentiment s ar e describe d ar e altogethe r alie n t o thes e contents. I n relatio n t o wha t i t describes , w e ca n say , th e wor d i s a n "artificial" o r a n "arbitrar y sign." 37 Painting, o n th e othe r hand , doe s no t addres s th e beholde r b y artificial mean s o r arbitrar y signs . "Th e sign s tha t paintin g employ s i n order t o spea k t o u s ar e no t arbitrar y o r prescribe d signs , a s ar e th e signs poetr y employs . Paintin g employ s natura l signs. " Bu t Dubo s quickly correct s himself . " I ma y expres s mysel f badly, " h e admits , "when I sa y tha t paintin g employ s signs : i t i s Natur e hersel f tha t Painting i s placin g befor e ou r eyes. " Thi s i s th e powe r o f painting . "Painting ha s th e advantag e tha t i t ca n plac e befor e ou r eye s th e ver y incidents o f th e action s o f whic h i t treats." 38 Painting , then , doe s no t employ sign s a t all . Bu t wha t ca n thi s mea n bu t tha t th e ga p betwee n the realit y represente d an d th e mean s employe d i n representin g it , th e gap Dubo s foun d s o characteristic o f poetry, i s here eliminated ? In othe r words, tha t i n paintin g realit y an d representatio n i n som e exceptiona l way merg e wit h on e another ? The skeptica l criti c ma y as k ho w thi s assertion , s o centra l t o Dubos' s characterization o f th e individua l arts , accord s wit h anothe r statement , not les s crucial fo r hi s doctrine o f art i n general, namely , tha t ar t shoul d not b e confounde d wit h natur e itself , tha t i t achieve s it s e n d — t o create "artificia l passions"—precisel y becaus e ther e alway s remain s a distance tha t canno t b e bridge d betwee n ra w natur e an d it s artisti c portrayal. Bu t i t i s not ou r tas k t o criticiz e o r t o find faul t wit h Dubos' s reasoning; w e wan t t o understan d wha t h e i s saying an d wha t attitud e he i s expressing . I f tha t attitud e contain s contradictions , the y ar e no t less a part o f hi s doctrin e tha n thos e part s tha t see m t o u s consistent . Perhaps becaus e wha t w e se e i s s o muc h close r t o realit y tha n wha t we hea r i n a description (whe n i t i s transformed int o th e arbitrar y sign s of words), th e sens e o f sight i s more powerfu l tha n th e sens e of hearing . "One ca n say , metaphoricall y speaking , tha t th e ey e i s close r t o ou r soul tha n th e ear." 39 I t wa s no t th e stor y o f Caesar' s assassinatio n tha t filled the peopl e o f Rom e wit h terro r an d indignation , bu t "th e sigh t o f 31

Modern Theories of Art the blood y rob e tha t wa s displayed." 40 Dubo s quote s Quintilia n t o testify t o th e powe r o f th e ey e upo n th e soul . Images , tha t venerate d teacher o f rhetori c believed , whe n "s o distinctl y represente d t o th e mind tha t w e see m t o se e the m wit h ou r eyes , and t o hav e the m befor e u s / ' ar e powerfu l i n th e stirrin g o f th e emotions . Therefore , "whoeve r shall bes t conceiv e suc h images , wil l hav e th e greates t powe r i n movin g the feelings." 41 Bu t onc e more , th e moder n criti c remember s tha t th e emotions Quintilia n ha s i n min d ar e no t "purifie d emotions, " the y ar e not "artificia l passions, " t o us e Dubos' s terms ; rathe r the y ar e th e rea l passions, no t mitigate d b y a n aestheti c distance . I f a n autho r o f th e sixteenth o r seventeent h centur y ha d quote d thes e passage s b y Quinti lian, h e woul d no t hav e doubte d tha t th e orato r wishe d t o sti r th e rea l passions. Tha t Dubo s shoul d quot e precisel y thes e sentence s show s ye t again ho w th e ol d an d th e new , th e traditiona l an d th e revolutionary , coexist i n hi s thought . Thoug h h e quote s th e advic e o n ho w t o sti r rea l passion, wha t h e ultimatel y aim s a t i s th e experienc e o f aestheti c pleasure. Dubos's historica l positio n become s eve n mor e manifes t i n ye t an other aspect , th e characterizatio n o f th e tw o art s an d th e analysi s o f their relationship . Le t u s fo r a momen t leav e ou r autho r an d th e earl y eighteenth century , an d remembe r tha t i n Europea n though t ther e wer e two differen t ye t articulat e tradition s o f comparin g th e arts . On e o f these foun d it s fulles t expressio n i n wha t i s know n a s th e paragone literature; th e othe r becam e famou s unde r th e Horatia n dictu m ut pictura poesis. Bot h tradition s originate d i n Antiquity , wer e revitalize d i n the Renaissance , an d hav e remaine d a livin g forc e eve r since . Th e debates know n unde r th e titl e o f paragone developed largel y i n th e workshops; i t i s characteristi c o f the m tha t the y compar e al l th e arts , with th e intentio n o f definin g wha t i s uniqu e i n eac h an d thu s distin guishing i t fro m al l th e others . I f w e ar e t o judg e b y th e best-know n representative o f th e paragone literatur e i n th e Italia n Renaissance , Leonardo d a Vinci , th e art s mos t frequentl y compare d an d juxtapose d to eac h othe r ar e paintin g an d sculpture ; music come s next , an d poetr y plays onl y a mino r part . Th e Horatia n traditio n i s t o emphasiz e wha t the tw o art s hav e i n common ; th e difference s betwee n the m ar e ofte n treated a s if they wer e o f only marginal significance . Painting , Plutarch' s 32

The Early Eighteenth Century saying i s endlessly echoed , i s mute poetry , poetr y i s loquacious painting . It i s one art, realize d i n differen t media. 42 For Dubos , a literar y schola r raise d i n th e traditio n o f classica l learning, i t wa s natura l t o adop t th e Horatia n model , an d thi s i s indee d the conceptua l framewor k o f hi s comparison s o f th e arts . Hi s grea t work, th e Reflexions critiques sur la poesie et sur la peinture, already betray s in it s titl e th e author' s allegianc e t o th e Horatia n tradition : i t single s out paintin g an d poetry , th e tw o art s tha t Horac e compares . I n th e tex t itself Dubo s keep s referrin g t o th e authoritie s o f humanism : h e quote s Cicero an d Quintilian , an d h e refer s t o Pliny , Vergil , an d Horace . Th e views h e expresses , however , ofte n plainl y contradic t th e cred o o f th e Horatian tradition . Dubo s shows , a s w e hav e seen , tha t paintin g an d poetry essentiall y diffe r fro m eac h other , tha t the y ar e roote d i n different dimension s o f th e huma n experience , an d tha t thei r respectiv e structures ar e subject t o altogether differen t laws . Dubos' s mai n empha sis i s o n wha t w e woul d toda y cal l th e awarenes s o f th e medium . I t i s worth ou r attentio n tha t thi s happen s no t i n th e worksho p o f th e practicing artist , bu t i n th e writing s o f a n educate d literar y man . Perhaps nowher e d o Dubos' s ne w an d revolutionar y idea s manifes t themselves mor e clearl y tha n i n hi s discussio n o f allegor y i n painting . At leas t sinc e th e Renaissance , allegor y (i n litera l translation : sayin g something else ) ha s occupie d a n importan t plac e i n theoretica l reflec tions o n th e arts . No t onl y wer e countles s allegorica l painting s an d sculptures produce d an d displayed , bu t ther e emerge d a considerabl e literature mean t t o assis t th e artis t i n th e shapin g o f allegories , an d th e audience i n correctl y readin g them. 43 Allegorica l painting s an d sculp tures wer e mos t highl y regarded , an d allegor y wa s considere d a nobl e and learne d ar t form . See n agains t thi s background , i t i s highly remark able tha t Dubo s shoul d hav e directl y attacke d allegor y i n painting . Th e chapter i n th e Reflexions critiques devote d t o thi s subjec t i s a n importan t document o f a changin g mentality , an d i t deserve s mor e carefu l atten tion tha n i t ha s receive d s o far . An allegory , s o Dubo s define s th e time-honore d concep t fro m hi s own poin t o f view , i s a n actio n tha t ha s neve r take n plac e o r a figure that ha s neve r existed. 44 Th e painte r wh o produce s a n allegorica l composition know s quit e wel l tha t h e i s depicting somethin g tha t i s no t 33

Modern Theories of Art and ha s neve r bee n par t o f reality . Dubo s discusse s individua l allegorica l figures an d whol e allegorica l scene s separately . Individua l allegorica l figures consis t o f tw o types : thos e invente d a lon g tim e ago , an d thos e the artis t invent s a s he goes alon g i n order t o expres s hi s persona l ideas . The first type—thos e figures tha t for m par t o f th e inherite d culture , a s we woul d sa y today—ha s "acquire d citizenship , a s i t were , amon g human beings." 45 Franc e represente d a s a woman , th e crow n firmly o n her head , th e scepte r i n he r hand , he r figure covere d i n a blu e mantl e with golde n fleurs-de-lis, o r th e "Tiber " rendere d a s a recumbent , hal f propped-up mal e figure, wit h a she-wolf a t hi s feet : thes e ar e allegorica l figures everybod y know s an d easil y recognize s i n artisti c imagery . Be cause the y ar e known , th e artis t i s permitted t o plac e Harpocrates , th e god o f silence , o r Minerva , th e goddes s o f wisdom , nex t t o th e portrai t of a prince , thu s suggestin g hi s circumspectio n an d hi s prudence . The othe r typ e o f allegorica l figure consist s o f image s tha t ar e no t inherited, an d therefor e ar e no t commo n knowledge ; th e artis t invent s them a s he works . Ho w ca n th e spectato r gras p thes e persona l symbols ? Indeed, the y remai n unintelligible . The y are , say s Dubos , lik e "cipher s to whic h nobod y ha s th e key , no t eve n thos e wh o searc h fo r it." 4 6 Complete allegorica l composition s ar e als o o f tw o kinds , thos e tha t are wholl y invented , an d historica l scene s t o whic h som e allegorica l parts ar e added . W e shal l commen t briefl y onl y o n thos e tha t ar e wholly invented . "I t i s rar e tha t painter s succee d i n purel y allegorica l compositions," Dubo s assure s hi s readers. 47 Wh y shoul d thi s b e so? The answer, accordin g t o ou r author , i s simple. Purel y allegorica l scene s ar e obscure an d opaque ; th e spectator , confuse d b y unintelligibl e figures and attributes , canno t mak e ou t th e meanin g o f wha t h e sees . "I n compositions o f thi s kin d i t i s almos t impossibl e t o mak e thei r subjec t matter distinctl y recognizable , an d t o mak e thei r idea s availabl e eve n t o the mos t intelligen t spectators. " Bein g unintelligible , the y wil l no t mov e the beholder, 48 an d wil l thu s fai l i n wha t i s th e painter' s centra l tas k and th e justificatio n o f an y wor k o f art . Th e paintin g o f allegorie s i s a trap endangerin g th e artis t i n hi s work . " I dar e say, " th e learne d abb e says, "tha t nothin g mor e ofte n prevent s painter s fro m achievin g th e true ai m o f thei r ar t . . . tha n thei r desir e t o b e applaude d fo r th e subtlety o f thei r imagination , tha t is , o f thei r mind. " Th e subtlet y o f 34

The Early Eighteenth Century imagination, a s reflecte d i n intricat e allegories , i s no t th e artist' s tru e calling no r i s it th e tru e valu e o f th e wor k o f art . I t is th e expressio n o f emotions tha t remain s th e painter' s end . "Instea d o f stickin g t o th e imitation o f th e passions , the y [th e painter s o f allegories ] surrende r t o the efforts o f a capricious imagination , an d to th e forging o f idl e fancies, amongst whic h mysteriou s allegor y i s a n enigm a mor e obscur e tha n ever wer e thos e o f th e Sphinx." 49 The painter' s task , h e say s a littl e later, i s no t t o exercis e ou r imaginatio n b y confrontin g u s wit h entan gled subject s w e ar e calle d upo n t o unravel ; the artist' s tas k i s t o mov e us. Therefor e Dubo s condemn s th e artist s who , "instea d o f speakin g t o us i n th e languag e o f passions , commo n t o al l men , spea k i n a language they hav e invente d themselves. " Dubos wa s no t alon e i n hi s ag e i n rejectin g allegory . Eighteenth century though t wa s largel y dominate d b y a lasting, sustaine d endeavo r to properl y understand , an d t o pas s judgment on , allegory , it s us e an d impact o n differen t fields o f creativ e activity . The moder n studen t o f that centur y i s therefor e force d t o retur n frequentl y t o thi s subject . I n his attitud e towar d allegor y Dubo s ma y wel l hav e bee n inspire d b y Pierre Bayle , th e grea t philosophe r o f th e Frenc h Enlightenment . Ou r author wa s a n admire r o f Bayle' s work ; h e studie d it , an d wa s influ enced b y Bayl e i n differen t way s (includin g th e exchang e o f letters). 50 Pierre Bayl e severel y criticize d allegorica l explanation s o f religion , a type o f explanation tha t was largel y inherite d fro m Renaissanc e human ism. H e wa s determine d t o destro y th e las t vestige s o f Renaissanc e allegorism an d t o tha t en d condemne d th e religion s o f Greec e an d Rome b y th e ugl y accusatio n o f thei r barbari c worshi p o f cats , dogs , serpents, and other disgustin g objects. 51 In th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h century , however , th e criticis m o f allegory di d no t appl y t o th e visua l arts . Her e Dubo s open s u p a discussion that , i n variou s an d eve r changin g forms , wa s t o las t til l ou r own days . Fo r th e presen t purpose , i t i s o f particula r significanc e t o u s to recogniz e no t onl y th e fac t tha t Dubo s rejecte d allegor y i n paintin g but hi s reason s fo r doin g so . I n effect, h e adduce s on e basi c reason : th e uninitiated spectato r wil l no t b e abl e t o understan d th e allegorica l painting, an d wil l therefor e no t b e move d b y wha t h e sees. I t i s th e spectator wh o remain s th e ultimat e judg e o f th e wor k o f art , and , a s 3£

Modern Theories of Art has bee n sai d a t th e beginnin g o f thi s section , h e i s th e centra l axi s o f Dubos' theor y o f art . Wha t h e say s abou t allegor y i n painting , a s abou t several othe r specifi c questions , onl y reveal s additiona l aspect s o f tha t central belief . 3. SHAFTESBURY

The moder n mentality , destine d t o overtur n s o muc h o f wha t fo r centuries ha d seeme d firm an d soli d trut h i n matter s o f tast e an d th e arts, wa s originall y s o deepl y embedde d i n inherite d tradition s that , even wit h th e advantag e o f hindsight , we . can hardl y distinguis h i t fro m what wa s stil l a remnant o f th e past . A t th e tur n o f the seventeent h an d eighteenth centuries , tha t majo r wellsprin g o f Wester n tradition , Neo platonism, onc e mor e inspire d a ne w approac h t o th e art s an d infuse d aesthetic reflectio n wit h ne w life . Thi s versio n o f Platonism , t o b e sure , was quit e fa r remove d fro m Plato' s origina l doctrin e an d eve n fro m th e idea o f hi s latter-da y follower s i n lat e Antiquit y an d th e Renaissance . Within th e framewor k o f thi s loos e Platonis m w e ca n observ e how , around 1700 , some specificall y moder n notion s an d attitude s too k shape . The Platonis m o f tha t perio d i s best represente d b y Shaftesbury . Anthony Ashle y Cooper , th e thir d Ear l o f Shaftesbur y (1671-171^) , like s o man y o f th e grea t mind s o f hi s time , wa s no t a systemati c thinker. Hi s importan t contributio n t o theoretica l reflectio n o n th e art s consists les s i n well-formulate d doctrine s tha n i n th e ver y fac t tha t h e raised, an d invigorated , certai n line s o f thought , ofte n withou t carryin g them t o final formulation . Shaftesbur y wa s personall y linke d wit h som e of th e majo r trend s i n Europea n thought . Educate d i n th e Englis h deistic tradition , t o whic h h e remaine d tru e i n a specia l way , h e wa s associated wit h th e earl y Enlightenment , particularl y wit h Pierr e Bayle , whom h e frequentl y me t whe n the y wer e bot h i n Amsterdam . H e wa s a citize n o f th e earl y eighteenth-centur y republi c o f letters , bu t alway s a ver y unusua l an d origina l one . I n bot h capacities , a s a representativ e of earl y Enlightenmen t thinkin g an d a s a highl y individua l ma n o f letters, h e exercise d a major influenc e o n th e though t o f hi s time. 52 Shaftesbury's contribution s t o th e theor y o f ar t an d artists , particu larly hi s idea s abou t creativit y (huma n an d divine) , ar e obscure d b y 36

The Early Eighteenth Century appearing i n a contex t o f mora l speculation . Thi s wa s s o i n hi s time , and remain s s o eve n today . I n th e eighteent h centur y th e impac t o f what h e ha d t o sa y abou t aestheti c matter s wa s no t fel t amon g livin g artists. Hi s influenc e o n th e philosoph y o f th e centur y wa s profound ; Kant's doctrin e o f th e aestheti c experience , i t ha s bee n said , wa s stimulated b y hi s ideas , bu t i n th e workshop s an d academie s o f ar t nobody kne w hi s name . This is perhaps les s surprising tha n it may see m at first. I t i s doubtfu l whethe r Shaftesbur y ha d a n actua l theor y o f painting an d sculpture ; wha t h e occasionall y ha s t o sa y abou t a pictur e or abou t a painter' s o r sculptor' s subjec t sound s rathe r conventional , and hardl y suggest s an y origina l departur e fro m accepte d generalities . His invigoratin g influenc e o n th e though t o f ar t flows fro m a differen t source. Wha t h e say s abou t natur e i n general , an d abou t landscape s i n particular, sometime s display s a surprising affinit y t o ar t an d a n under standing of artistic processes. Whoeve r trie s to understand Shaftesbury' s view o f ar t an d hi s formativ e impac t o n moder n aesthetic s mus t gras p the characte r o f hi s though t a s a whol e rathe r tha n focu s o n specifi c details i n his doctrine . An insigh t int o th e aestheti c aspec t o f Shaftesbury' s combinatio n o f Platonic idealis m an d psychologica l intuitionis m afford s u s hi s visio n o f the worl d a s a wor k o f ar t create d b y God . A perfec t relationshi p between th e part s an d th e whol e i s characteristi c o f th e world , an d i t has a n artisti c character . Shaftesbur y use s man y term s t o designat e thi s relationship, suc h a s "th e whole, " "th e One, " an d "unit y o f design, " but th e mos t importan t on e i s "harmony." Harmony , th e highes t value , is achieve d i n th e univers e a s a whole . I n a sentenc e tha t coul d hav e been writte n b y St . Augustine , h e says : "I n th e rea l Cosmo s th e whol e is harmony , th e number s entire , th e musi c perfect. " Tha t cosmi c harmony i s bot h stati c (a s th e perfec t balanc e full y achieved ) an d dynamic (as the inborn striving to achieve tha t perfect balance) . Shaftes bury emphasize s th e dynami c qualit y o f th e cosmi c harmony . Th e universe i s no t a machine bu t a n animate d organis m o f forms ; i t is , i n his words , a "conspiring beauty." 53 Similar ideas , i t nee d hardl y b e stressed , ar e commonplac e i n th e Platonic tradition . A s a rule , harmon y wa s see n a s static ; ofte n i t wa s considered th e ver y basi s o f stability . A dynami c vie w o f harmony , 37

Modern Theories of Art though neve r altogethe r absen t i n th e Platoni c tradition , becam e mor e prominent onl y i n th e lat e Renaissance . A s always , the n to o dynamis m entailed a certai n intrinisi c tension , a s ha s bee n show n wit h muc h learning b y Le o Spitze r i n hi s Classical and Christian Ideas of World Harmony.S4 Th e interpenetratio n o f cosmologica l an d aestheti c idea s char acterized th e late-Renaissanc e notio n o f dynami c harmony . Giordan o Bruno, takin g th e orbi t o f th e su n a s a symbol , mad e a diagra m wit h two circles , one within , on e outside , th e orbit , intendin g t o mak e visibl e the principl e tha t motio n an d rest , tempora l an d eternal , coincide . A n inborn desir e t o achiev e complet e harmon y animate s th e univers e s o outlined. I t wa s thi s concep t o f dynami c harmony , associate d wit h intrinsic contras t an d tension , t o whic h Shaftesbur y wa s heir . Th e infinite proces s o f harmonizatio n requires , h e believes , a "divin e artifi cer," a "sovereig n genius. " Th e age-ol d imag e o f Go d a s a craftsma n fashioning th e worl d i s revived her e i n th e moder n gar b o f "genius. " Among Shaftesbury' s prominen t contribution s t o ou r subjec t ar e hi s views o f th e creativ e artist , or , a s h e calle d him , th e "genius. " A present-day reader , reviewin g wha t Shaftesbur y ha d t o sa y abou t th e creative artist , canno t hel p feelin g tha t hi s opinion s ar e commonplace , even trite . Thi s impressio n shows , perhap s mor e tha n anythin g else , how far-reachin g wa s hi s contribution , ho w profoundl y h e ha s shape d the moder n notion s o f th e artist . W e find i t difficul t t o envisag e th e views o f th e artis t tha t wer e curren t befor e th e earl y eighteent h cen tury, an d w e toda y follow—t o a large r exten t tha n w e realize — Shaftesbury's guidance . H e figures eminentl y amon g th e philosopher s and poet s wh o create d on e o f th e grea t myth s o f th e moder n age , th e myth o f th e creativ e artist . Shaftesbury' s epigrammatic , pithy , pointe d formulations, som e critic s maintain , ar e ofte n quote d ou t o f context , and thu s ma y soun d mor e radica l tha n the y actuall y are . B e thi s a s i t may, on e canno t b e i n doub t s o fa r a s th e genera l orientatio n o f hi s thought i s concerned . Two feature s ar e essentia l i n th e creativ e artist , Shaftesbur y believed : originality an d creativ e power . Th e notion s themselve s ar e no t new , bu t the earlie r stage s o f ou r stud y di d no t accusto m u s t o an y emphasi s o n originality o r novelty . Shaftesbury , however , declare s tim e an d agai n that th e artis t i s a n origina l master . "Al l i s invention, " h e says , "crea 38

The Early Eighteenth Century tion, divining. " A s i f t o explai n wha t h e means , h e adds : "Thing s tha t were neve r seen , no r tha t eve r were ; ye t feigned. " I t i s thi s spiri t o f invention tha t assure s th e artist' s independence . " Tis o n themselve s that al l depends. " Ove r an d ove r agai n h e emphasize s th e artist' s freedom.ss What di d h e hav e i n min d whe n h e spok e o f thi s liberty ? H e coul d hardly hav e mean t a lac k o f socia l restriction . The tim e whe n artist s had t o struggl e fo r thei r liberatio n fro m th e bondag e o f restrictiv e medieval practices , a s whe n Lorenz o Ghibert i ha d t o g o t o jai l fo r refusing t o belon g t o a guild, ha d lon g sinc e passed . B y 1700 , painters , at leas t thos e wh o wer e successful , wer e considere d gentlemen . No r could Shaftesbur y hav e mean t onl y th e freedom from rules tha t Federig o Zuccari an d Giordan o Brun o ha d referre d t o precisel y a centur y be fore.56 The rejectio n o f restrictiv e an d rigi d rule s play s a certain par t i n Shaftesbury's thought , bu t thi s doe s no t see m t o b e a centra l issu e o r one endowe d wit h immediat e urgency . Wha t "freedom " mean s here , I believe, i s tha t th e artis t draw s fro m hi s individua l self , tha t h e i s th e ultimate origi n o f his work . If this interpretatio n i s correct, Shaftesbury , b y shifting th e emphasi s from one part of a traditional patter n to another, departs from tradition. That "invention " i s a majo r componen t i n th e creativ e proces s wa s a belief hel d i n many ages . Invenzione, a s is well known , i s th e first part i n the "syste m o f painting " tha t th e Renaissanc e bequeathe d t o moder n Europe, an d i n ar t literatur e sinc e th e fifteenth centur y th e artist' s inventive powe r wa s ofte n praised . Bu t "invention " was no t contraste d with tradition , no r wa s i t allowe d t o endange r th e commitmen t t o th e cultural an d artisti c heritage . I t i s characteristic tha t th e founde r o f th e Renaissance theor y o f art , Leon e Battist a Alberti , advise s painter s t o associate wit h poet s an d orators , th e exponent s o f literar y tradition , precisely wher e h e speak s of invenzione. Th e poet s an d orators "coul d be very usefu l i n beautifull y composin g th e istoria whose greates t prais e consists i n th e invention, " h e say s {Alberti on Tainting [New Haven , 19^6], pp . 7 6 ff.). Thi s i s ho w inventio n wa s understoo d fo r centuries . "The novelt y i n painting," said Poussi n i n the mid-seventeenth century , more tha n tw o centurie s afte r Albert i an d only on e generatio n befor e Shaftesbury, "doe s no t consis t principall y i n a new subject , bu t i n good 39

Modern Theories of Art and ne w dispositio n an d expression , an d thu s th e subjec t fro m bein g common an d ol d become s singula r an d ne w " (Lettres de Poussin, ed . P . du Colombie r [Paris , 1929] , pp. 24 3 ff.). The artist' s inventivenes s an d originality , a s Shaftesbur y sa w them , differ fro m tha t traditiona l view . Picture s an d statue s ar e rea l an d litera l creations, image s th e artis t draw s fro m himself , rathe r tha n mor e o r less sligh t modification s o f a traditio n hande d dow n throug h th e centu ries. Shaftesbur y di d no t touc h upo n th e age-ol d proble m o f creatio ex nihilo, th e "creatio n ou t o f nothing, " bu t i t seem s obviou s tha t h e believed th e individua l artist , an d no t accumulate d cultura l patterns , t o be th e rea l originato r o f th e work . A comparison o f Shaftesbury' s belief s concerning artisti c an d mora l freedo m ma y b e usefu l here . A s ultimatel y man, an d no t th e mora l law , i s responsibl e fo r hi s deeds , s o ultimatel y the individua l artist , no t th e traditio n h e inherits , shape s hi s work . I t i s as a n original , creativ e spiri t tha t th e artis t ha s a n inheren t affinit y t o God. No t fortuitously , Shaftesbury' s preferre d mythologica l her o i s Prometheus, th e independen t creator , whom , a s Oska r Walze l ha s beautifully shown , th e ag e betwee n Shaftesbur y an d Romanticis m me tamorphosed int o th e rebelliou s artist . On e o f ou r author' s mos t fre quently quote d utterance s claim s tha t th e artis t i s " a Prometheu s su b Jove, a second maker." 57 To wha t degre e Shaftesbur y believe d th e creativ e gif t t o b e a n altogether personal , individua l endowment , on e ca n infe r fro m hi s advice tha t th e artis t see k th e solitud e o f nature , th e tru e plac e o f inspiration. Withdrawin g fro m th e socia l racket , retreatin g int o th e silence o f seclusion : thi s i s th e bes t wa y t o discove r one' s own , tru e character. Shaftesbur y eve n offer s technica l advic e fo r educativ e behav ior: i n solitud e th e artis t shoul d tal k t o himsel f i n a loud voice . Soliloqu y in retrea t lead s t o self-knowledge , an d self-knowledg e i s a n essentia l condition i n formin g an d articulatin g one' s character . Th e ancient s di d this (Shaftesbur y ma y hav e ha d Marcu s Aureliu s i n mind , a n autho r much rea d i n seventeenth - an d eighteenth-centur y England) , an d thu s they becam e "self-examiners. " A n artis t shoul d b e a self-examiner . Whoever undertake s t o represen t th e characte r o f other s shoul d first know hi s own. 58 To a twentieth-centur y reader , Shaftesbury' s hig h regar d fo r th e 40

The Early Eighteenth Century artist's solitud e ma y soun d trite . I f tha t i s so , nowever , th e reade r forgets ho w alie n suc h a vie w wa s i n th e period s tha t precede d ou r author, especiall y th e Renaissanc e an d Baroque . Anchorite s an d me n o f letters, philosophers an d mystics wer e reporte d t o hav e sought solitude ; they wer e admired , thei r lif e storie s wer e told , an d ther e wer e som e intermittent attempt s t o imitat e them . Bu t th e notio n o f th e painte r and sculpto r wa s littl e affecte d b y al l this . T o b e sure , occasionall y a n artist's ben t fo r seclusio n wa s note d (Michelangel o i s th e mos t famou s example), bu t o n th e whol e thi s wa s considere d a s still anothe r expres sion o f tha t individua l artist' s strang e characte r an d unsocia l behavior . Art a s such wa s conceive d a s part o f socia l lif e (whe n th e term i s take n in it s wides t sense) , an d th e productio n o f a work o f art was see n a s an act intimatel y interwove n i n th e socia l an d cultura l fabri c o f th e com munity. I t woul d b e ver y difficul t t o find Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e ar t literature advisin g th e painte r t o retir e int o solitud e i n orde r t o dis cover, an d articulate , hi s ow n character . I n som e ages , w e shoul d no t forget, th e ver y showin g o f th e artist' s characte r wa s see n a s a dange r rather tha n a n advantage . Leonard o d a Vinc i an d th e Venetia n painte r and criti c Paol o Pino , fo r instance , alerte d th e artis t t o th e dange r o f inadvertently depictin g hi s ow n fac e i n multifigur e compositions . Bu t even wher e self-knowledg e wa s accepte d a s valuable , it s articulatio n and expression wer e still considere d t o take place within a social matrix. The young artis t shoul d get acquainte d wit h hi s own nature , tha t is, the star unde r whic h h e wa s born—s o Lomazz o requires—s o tha t h e could find a teache r bor n unde r th e sam e sta r wh o woul d hel p hi m t o shape hi s character . I t wa s take n fo r grante d tha t one' s personalit y an d style wer e shape d i n continuin g contac t wit h societ y an d b y absorbin g the collectiv e cultura l heritage. 59 Fo r th e Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e periods, th e artist' s individualit y outsid e an y participatio n i n hi s socia l and cultural contex t wa s simpl y unthinkable . Whe n Shaftesbur y praise s seclusion a s a wa y o f knowin g one' s character , h e i s breakin g wit h a long traditio n an d announcing th e comin g o f th e moder n age . In considerin g Shaftesbur y a s a thinke r endowe d wit h a subtl e sensitivity fo r processe s tha t wer e unfoldin g beneat h th e surface , a s i t were, w e canno t fai l t o mentio n hi s particula r versio n o f th e Sublim e and his new conceptio n o f th e aesthetic experience . Shaftesbur y di d not 4i

Modern Theories of Art explicitly discus s th e Sublime , certainl y no t i n painting . I n fact , hi s tast e in paintin g wa s rathe r conventiona l fo r hi s time . Raphae l an d th e Carracci h e sa w a s model s o f perfection . H e tell s hi s reader s ho w h e could believ e a pictur e b y Raphae l t o b e don e b y angels . Michelangelo , significantly, "erred, " bu t "o n th e sid e o f Greatness. " Ye t whil e h e di d not outspokenl y presen t an y view s o n th e Sublime , h e foreshadowe d the notion s an d helpe d prepar e th e emotiona l climat e fo r th e fascinatio n with th e Sublim e tha t becam e suc h a distinc t featur e i n th e cours e o f the eighteent h century . Enthusiasm , t o whic h h e devote d a length y discussion, i s no t onl y a for m o f religiou s fanaticis m an d a disorde r o f the imagination—al l thi s wa s i n ful l agreemen t wit h opinion s hel d i n his time ; it als o provide s a psychological basi s fo r th e Sublime. 60 Here w e nee d no t attemp t a discussio n o f th e Sublime , fo r w e shal l have t o retur n t o tha t subjec t severa l times . I shoul d lik e onl y t o mention briefl y th e specifi c directio n o f Shaftesbury' s influenc e respect ing thi s importan t issue . Shaftesbur y wa s amon g th e thinker s wh o linked th e Sublim e wit h th e externa l world , wit h wha t w e visuall y perceive o f the worl d aroun d us . As Marjorie Nicolso n ha s shown, whil e at a tim e i n Franc e whe n th e ide a o f th e Sublim e remaine d mainl y rhetorical, i n Englan d a concep t o f th e "Natura l Sublime " wa s devel oping tha t foun d literar y expressio n i n book s rangin g fro m Thoma s Burnet's A Scared Theory of the Earth (1681 , 1684 ) t o Josep h Addison' s Pleasures of the Imagination (1712) . Shaftesbur y playe d a n importan t par t in thi s development. 61 I n a well-know n chapte r o f The Moralists, pub lished i n 170 9 bu t writte n earlier , h e describe s hi s emotiona l respons e to walkin g i n a mountainou s wilderness . Th e traveler s "ar e seize d wit h giddy horror , mistrustin g th e groun d the y wal k on , le d b y ne w experi ence wit h vas t an d wil d Natur e t o meditat e upo n th e ruin s o f a world. " Here h e distinguishes , thoug h hesitantl y an d i n hi s rhapsodi c manner , between th e Beautifu l an d th e Sublime . I n face o f the latter , "w e canno t help bein g transporte d wit h th e though t o f it . I t inspire s u s wit h something mor e tha n ordinary , an d raise s u s abov e ourselves. " Thi s feeling fo r th e indescribable , th e "Aesthetic s o f th e Infinite, " t o us e Marjorie Nicolson' s felicitou s phrase, 62 anticipate s muc h o f th e latte r half o f th e eighteent h century' s though t o n art , it s potential s an d 42

The Early Eighteenth Century limitations. I t als o anticipates , an d possibl y set s th e patter n for , som e considerations i n th e narrowe r field of art theory . The othe r ide a i n whic h Shaftesbur y anticipate s a grea t dea l o f modern aestheti c though t i s altogethe r different . Thi s i s th e notio n o f aesthetic experienc e a s being, to us e the formulation Kan t gave it by the end o f th e century , a "disinterested pleasure " (interesseloses Wohlgefallen). The idea , if not th e term , i s clearly present i n Shaftesbury's writing . W e experience beauty, our author claims in The Moralists, only if our response to wha t w e perceiv e i s unselfis h an d withou t bias , tha t is , i f i t i s a disinterested perception . Th e experienc e o f beauty , h e insists , mus t b e completely separat e fro m th e desir e t o posses s o r th e urg e t o manipu late. I n The Moralists, one o f th e interlocutor s addresse s th e other : "Imagine, then , goo d Philocles , i f bein g take n t o th e beaut y o f th e ocean, whic h yo u se e yonde r a t a distance , i t shoul d com e int o you r head t o see k ho w t o comman d it , and , lik e som e might y admiral , rid e master o f th e sea , woul d no t th e fanc y b e a little absurd ? . . . Le t wh o will cal l i t their s . . . you wil l ow n th e enjoymen t o f this kin d to b e very different fro m tha t which som e naturall y follow fro m th e contemplatio n of th e ocean' s beauty." 63 A critica l reade r ma y as k whethe r ther e i s no t a strain—though n o outright contradiction—betwee n bein g transporte d int o th e unsee n and indescribable , o n th e on e hand , an d th e altogethe r disintereste d contemplation o f th e sigh t on e i s face d with , o n th e other . But , a s I have sai d earlier, Shaftesbur y i s no t a consistent systemati c thinker . Hi s significance lie s i n anticipating th e great problem s o f modern aesthetics , and, a t leas t partly , i n indicatin g th e directio n o f th e intellectua l development o f though t o n art.

III. ANTIQUARIAN S AN D CONNOISSEUR S Modern reflectio n o n th e visua l art s dre w fro m man y sources . Alon g with philosopher s an d artist s ther e wer e othe r group s tha t determine d the cours e o f aestheti c thought , an d amon g thos e groups th e antiquari ans an d connoisseur s loo m prominently . "I n th e eighteent h century, " 43

Modern Theories of Art writes Arnald o Momigliano , himsel f a connoisseu r o f antiquarians , " a new humanis m compete d wit h th e traditiona l one. " Th e exponent s o f that ne w humanis m "preferre d trave l t o th e emendatio n o f texts , an d altogether subordinate d literar y text s t o coins , statues , vase s an d in scriptions." 64 Th e histor y o f th e archaeologicall y minde d humanis m is , at a first glance , les s enthrallin g tha n tha t o f othe r groups . I n th e stor y of antiquarianism , whethe r th e object s unearthe d belon g t o a distant o r to a mor e recen t past , ther e ar e fe w sudde n break s an d dramati c turns , and th e spiri t o f th e age s the y dea l wit h ca n scarel y b e measure d i n terms o f year s o r decades . Tha t story , then , ha s a slower pac e tha n tha t governing artisti c creatio n o r philosophi c reflection . I n th e firs t decade s of th e eighteent h century , however , th e cumulativ e effec t o f th e de voted an d meticulou s scholarshi p tha t ofte n goe s unde r th e nam e o f antiquarianism o n th e broa d intellectua l orientatio n o f th e ag e mus t have becom e quit e considerable . A s wit h s o man y othe r processe s tha t were takin g plac e i n th e dark , a s i t were , i t suddenl y cam e t o ligh t i n the grea t intellectua l upheava l o f th e middl e o f th e century . Som e o f the mos t importan t figures tha t founde d th e moder n vie w o f ar t wer e either antiquarian s o r peopl e wit h dee p root s i n connoisseurship . Winckelmann wa s no t onl y officiall y i n charg e o f th e ancien t monu ments o f Rom e bu t became , a s on e knows , th e founde r o f moder n archaeology; Herde r wa s a connoisseu r o f bot h medieva l literatur e an d lore an d o f ancien t sculpture ; Lessin g no t onl y revive d th e ancien t vision o f death ; h e als o retrieve d fro m librarie s th e preciou s text s o f medieval work s o n connoisseurshi p (amon g them , Theophilus' s On Diverse Arts) an d wrot e o n ancien t scarab s an d amulet s a s wel l a s o n ancient perspective . A revie w o f wha t antiquarianis m an d th e connois seurship attitud e ma y hav e contribute d t o th e theor y o f paintin g an d sculpture seem s therefor e desirable . Antiquarians an d connoisseurs , normall y no t concerne d wit h th e "great," comprehensiv e problem s o f artisti c creation , ma y see m t o b e far remove d fro m th e issue s an d aim s o f ar t theory . Wha t coul d thes e scholars, s o totall y immerse d i n figuring ou t th e valu e o f a Roma n coi n or identifyin g th e empero r represente d o n it , s o profoundl y concerne d with sortin g ou t an d classifyin g differen t objects , man-mad e o r foun d in nature , wha t coul d the y contribut e t o th e theor y o f painting ? On e 44

The Early Eighteenth Century cannot hel p wondering . Ye t a close r loo k convince s th e studen t tha t connoisseurship an d ar t theory , differen t a s the y ma y see m a t a first sight, ar e no t altogethe r separate d fro m eac h other . Antiquaria n studie s help t o determin e th e cours e o f moder n ar t theor y les s i n term s o f th e specific notion s o r concret e task s the y formulat e tha n i n th e intellectua l environment the y create . I t wa s i n th e crystallizatio n o f menta l atti tudes, o f point s o f departur e fo r furthe r investigation , tha t th e majo r contributions o f antiquaria n studie s t o th e living , growin g ar t theory , totally directe d t o th e present , becam e significant . Thoug h i t i s i n th e nature o f thing s tha t thes e contribution s canno t b e single d ou t easily , they ar e no t beyon d th e reac h o f rationa l analysis . I shal l attemp t t o present som e o f th e centra l factor s i n th e antiquaria n contributio n t o thought o n art . Nothing, i t seems , coul d b e furthe r remove d fro m th e intellectua l world o f antiquarian s an d connoisseur s tha n universa l belief s that , i n a precise sens e o f th e word , g o beyon d wha t ca n b e see n an d proved . Antiquarians, w e hav e bee n educate d t o think , wer e completel y devote d to th e individua l object , th e concrete , th e material , an d th e tangible . Yet the y entertaine d theoretica l convictions , amon g the m th e belie f tha t the visua l i s a true r an d mor e reliabl e witnes s tha n th e verba l record . The notio n tha t th e imag e hold s mor e trut h tha n th e wor d seem s t o underlie a grea t dea l o f antiquaria n study , an d i t ma y wel l tur n ou t t o have bee n on e o f th e majo r idea s tha t antiquarianis m bequeathe d t o lat e eighteenth-century philosoph y o f art . As earl y a s 1671 , Ezechiel Spanheim , th e founde r o f moder n numis matics, reminde d hi s reader s o f Quintilian' s observation s o n th e contra dictions i n wha t historian s say , often concernin g basi c historic facts , an d of th e consequen t unreliabilit y o f historica l researc h tha t i s th e neces sary resul t o f thes e observations . Th e remed y fo r suc h uncertaint y seemed t o li e onl y i n th e "ancien t marbles." 65 Th e testimon y o f th e material objec t i s mor e secur e tha n th e literar y evidence . A fe w year s later, i n 1679 , Jacque s Spon , a physicia n wh o becam e a celebrate d numismatist, proclaime d th e superiorit y o f material , archaeologica l evi dence ove r al l othe r form s o f testimony. 66 Onc e mor e w e hea r tha t marble an d bronze s ar e true r t o wha t happene d i n th e pas t tha n th e words o f historian s o r o f an y othe r witnesse s o f remot e events . I n th e 4£

Modern Theories of Art same sense , the earl y eighteenth-centur y write r Josep h Addiso n asserte d that "I t i s muc h safe r t o quot e a meda l tha n a n autho r fo r i n thi s cas e you d o no t appea l t o Suetoniu s o r t o Lamprodicus , bu t t o th e empero r himself o r t o th e whol e bod y o f a Roma n senate." 67 A t abou t th e sam e time, a n Italia n schola r starte d a work entitle d La Istoria Universale provata con monumenti ejigurata con simboli degli antichi, also base d o n th e under lying convictio n tha t simboli (that is , monument s largel y pertainin g t o what w e cal l th e visua l arts ) provid e a firmer basi s fo r historica l inquir y than doe s literar y evidence. 68 The valu e o f visua l materia l a s historica l evidenc e i s no t her e ou r concern. Th e ar t historia n i s full y awar e tha t visua l testimon y canno t always b e take n a t fac e value , tha t i t require s interpretation , an d i s thu s liable t o erro r an d fals e reading . Wha t interest s u s her e i s tha t belief s were entertained , thoug h no t full y articulated , tha t th e objec t perceive d in visua l experienc e belong s someho w t o a mor e elementar y leve l o f being, i s someho w close r t o th e origi n o f al l things , tha n th e mor e subtle, bu t als o mor e artificial , work s belongin g t o th e art s o f th e word . When Germa n Idealis t philosophers , a s we shal l se e i n th e nex t chapter , started constructin g hierarchi c system s o f th e arts , the y mad e th e visua l arts th e basi s o f th e whol e structure . Di d the y continue , an d explicitl y formulate, wha t numismatist s an d connoisseur s intuitivel y believed ? The man y student s her e lumpe d togethe r unde r th e collectiv e head ing o f "antiquarians, " thoug h i n fac t the y applie d themselve s t o rathe r heterogeneous branche s o f learning , mad e anothe r important , an d mor e explicit, contributio n t o th e foundatio n o f a moder n ar t theory : the y created th e notio n o f connoisseurshi p an d shape d th e typ e o f investiga tion tha t goe s unde r tha t name . I t wa s a contribution tha t wa s t o mak e a lastin g impressio n o n th e min d o f th e moder n world . S o far , th e history o f connoisseurshi p ha s no t receive d th e attentio n i t deserve s a s a uniqu e wa y o f studyin g art . It s lif e stor y ha s no t bee n tol d a s a continuous narrative ; onl y individua l stage s o r facets o f it s developmen t have bee n mor e carefull y explored . In som e rudimentar y form , i t strike s one a s obvious , connoisseurshi p mus t alway s hav e existed ; i n al l age s people hav e surel y trie d t o grou p pictures , statues , an d objet s d'ar t according t o wha t the y believe d t o b e thei r origi n an d function , o r according t o som e othe r criteria . An d ye t w e shal l probabl y no t g o 46

The Early Eighteenth Century wrong i n believin g tha t i t wa s only i n th e seventeent h centur y tha t connoisseurship cam e int o it s own ; only the n wa s i t regarde d a s a n activity sui generis, its practitioner s havin g particula r end s i n min d an d gradually developin g th e conceptua l apparatu s necessar y t o mee t thos e ends. Whe n i n th e lat e seventeent h centur y th e Abat e Filipp o Baldin ucci (wh o die d i n 1696 ) classifie d th e man y drawing s i n Florentin e collections, distinguishin g "hands " and trying to detect i n them individ ual masters , an d the n carefull y catalogue d thes e work s o f art , h e produced on e o f th e first feat s o f connoisseurshi p i n th e moder n sens e of th e term. 69 Ye t eve n thoug h Baldinucc i applie d hi s approac h t o works o f ar t o f a differen t natur e a s wel l (h e bough t painting s fo r Cosimo HI , and he wrote th e first history o f engraving), he did not hav e a theory of connoisseurship . Suc h a theor y appeare d onl y shortl y afte r his death. The theor y cam e fro m Paris . I n 169 9 Roge r d e Piles , surrounde d a s he wa s b y a certai n revolutionar y aura , wa s finally admitte d int o th e very conservativ e Academ y o f Art , an d i n th e sam e yea r h e publishe d his Idea of the Perfect Painter. 70 In tha t sli m volum e h e presente d wha t must be the earliest doctrine of connoisseurship. The full titl e of Roger's work read s The Idea of the Perfect Painter: or, Rules for Forming a Right Judgment on the Works of the Painters. Th e tensio n betwee n th e tw o part s of th e titl e i s immediatel y obvious . Th e first (major ) par t o f th e titl e i s concerned wit h th e artist , eve n wit h hi s most general image , hi s "Idea"; the secon d par t (the subtitle ) i s concerned wit h th e artist' s work , an d is so fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f formin g a judgment . I n th e presen t context, w e ar e o f cours e concerne d wit h wha t i s indicate d b y th e subtitle, th e painter' s work . Carefully readin g d e Piles ' tex t on e sense s bot h ho w larg e th e connoisseur's problem s loome d i n th e aestheti c reflectio n o f th e tim e and als o ho w di m an d obscur e th e outline s o f wha t precisel y thes e problems include d stil l were . "Ther e ar e thre e severa l sort s o f knowl edge relating to Pictures, " Roger declares i n Chapter 2 8 of his Idea of the Perfect Painter; i t i s a chapter title d "O f the knowledg e o f pictures." The first sor t i s "t o kno w wha t i s Goo d an d wha t i s Ba d i n a picture." 71 What h e her e ha s i n mind , then , i s actuall y ar t criticis m rathe r tha n connoisseurship. B y th e en d o f th e eighteent h century , th e tw o prov 47

Modern Theories of Art inces, ar t criticis m an d connoisseurship , wer e neatl y separate d fro m each other , an d th e proces s o f divisio n too k plac e mainl y i n France . When i n th e secon d hal f o f th e centur y Deni s Diderot , i n hi s review s of th e Salons , wrot e ar t criticis m proper , th e questio n o f th e pictures ' authorship o r relate d problem s o f connoisseurshi p didn' t com e up . An d when Lessin g publishe d hi s Laocoon i n 1766 , hi s introductio n clearl y distinguished betwee n th e critic' s concern s an d thos e o f th e connois seur. Tw o generation s earlier , however , i n 1699 , whe n Roge r d e Pile s published hi s Idea of the Perfect Painter, the lin e betwee n criticis m an d connoisseurship ha d no t ye t bee n sharpl y drawn . Th e notion s wer e stil l indefinite, thei r outline s somewha t blurred . The othe r tw o "sort s o f knowledge " tha t Roge r adduce s actuall y belong t o th e real m o f connoisseurship . On e o f the m i s "t o kno w wh o is th e Autho r o f th e Picture. " Fo r centuries , on e nee d hardl y say , thi s remained th e ke y connoisseu r questio n an d i t seem s alread y perfectl y evident t o Roge r d e Piles . I t i s on e that , i n principle , make s a clear-cu t answer possible , fo r th e notio n o f authorship need s n o qualification , an d our autho r therefor e concentrate s o n ho w t o giv e definit e answers . Now, wha t i s th e solution ? Wha t shoul d a connoisseur , askin g wh o i s the autho r o f a n a s ye t unknow n picture , actuall y do ? H e shoul d loo k and compare , say s Roge r quit e sensibly , "Th e Knowledg e o f th e Name s of th e Author s i n go t b y lon g Practice , an d th e sigh t o f a grea t man y Pictures o f al l Schools . . . . " H e als o know s ho w th e connoisseu r shoul d proceed i n detail . "And , afte r havin g b y muc h Applicatio n acquir' d a distinct Ide a o f eac h o f thes e Schools , i f w e coul d find ou t t o whic h o f them a Pictur e belongs , w e mus t compar e i t wit h tha t t o whic h w e think i t ha s th e neares t affinity , an d whe n w e hav e foun d ou t th e School, w e mus t appl y th e Pictur e t o tha t Painter , whos e Manne r agrees mos t wit h tha t Work . . . ." 7 2 Roger, then , i s aware o f th e problem ; h e als o know s tha t compariso n is th e onl y wa y t o approac h it s solution . Bu t jus t what, which features , should b e compare d i s a questio n tha t i s stil l completel y beyon d hi s horizon. Th e sam e i s also true fo r th e thir d sor t o f knowledge pertainin g to ou r question , "I f a Pictur e b e a n Origina l o r a Copy, " i n Roger' s words. T o answe r thi s questio n h e know s tha t yo u hav e t o hav e a fine sense o f discriminatio n fo r th e intangible , indefinabl e qualitie s tha t 48

The Early Eighteenth Century characterize a master , an d thi s sens e o f discriminatio n i s cultivate d b y continuous observatio n an d comparison. I n the thir d sort o f knowledge , the observatio n an d compariso n (o r whateve r notion s ou r autho r ma y apply) remai n intuitive , an d therefor e ineffable , a s i n th e secon d sort . An analysi s o f observatio n an d compariso n stil l belong s t o a distan t future. Lookin g an d comparin g fo r Roge r d e Pile s ar e essentiall y non analytical; he does no t discriminat e betwee n th e various parts, elements, and feature s w e tak e i n whil e w e loo k a t a painting. I n the secon d hal f of th e nineteent h century , i n th e heyda y o f scientifi c connoisseurship , Giovanni Morelli , traine d a s a physician , becam e know n beyon d th e limited group s o f connoisseur s fo r hi s metho d o f ascertainin g th e authorship o f a painting. Ever y tru e artist , h e claimed , i s committe d t o the repetition o f certain characteristic forms . T o determine wh o painte d a certai n picture , w e shoul d identif y it s Grundformen, it s fundamenta l forms, an d the n find ou t whic h artis t use d thes e forms. 73 Th e ver y singling ou t o f suc h fundamenta l form s i s th e beginnin g o f a n analysi s of observatio n an d comparison , a remova l o f thes e processe s fro m th e realm o f th e merel y intuitiv e experience . Bu t eve n mor e importan t i s the notio n tha t th e Grundformen tha t ar e characteristic o f each individua l artist ar e no t evenl y distribute d acros s th e whol e o f th e painting . Certain part s (fo r example , composition , face ) wil l b e mor e strongl y determined b y general , nonpersona l convention s tha n others , suc h a s the shap e o f th e thum b o r th e lob e o f th e ear . Wha t Morelli , then , looks fo r ar e no t th e centra l par t o f th e paintin g (suc h a s th e composi tion o f th e majo r figures or the facia l expression s o f the centra l heroes) , but rathe r wha t see m t o b e margina l feature s tha t di d no t attrac t muc h attention. Ho w deepl y interwove n wit h moder n idea s thes e thought s are ha s bee n show n i n a n interestin g stud y b y Richar d Wollheim. 74 I f we no w loo k t o Roge r d e Piles , i t instantl y become s manifes t ho w different intuitiv e connoisseurshi p i s fro m analytical , an d o n wha t different theme s i t concentrates . It i s interestin g t o notic e tha t thoug h Roge r d e Pile s ask s wh o i s th e author o f th e picture , hi s categorie s ar e no t thos e o f individua l artist s but of collective entities , of schools. The connoisseur's first and essential task i s t o attribut e th e pictur e i n front o f hi m t o a school, t o a n artistic tradition. Roge r eve n know s ho w man y school s ther e ar e in th e histor y 49

Modern Theories of Art of painting , namel y six . H e i s o f cours e awar e tha t ther e remain s th e task o f placin g th e pictur e mor e precisel y withi n th e school . "Ther e ar e Pictures mad e b y Disciples , who hav e Copy' d thei r Master s ver y exactl y in thei r Judgmen t an d thei r Manner . . . . Nevertheles s thi s Inconve nience i s no t withou t Remed y fo r such , a s no t satisfyin g themselve s i n knowing a Master' s Hand , hav e Penetratio n enoug h t o discove r th e Character o f hi s Mind." 75 The gradual buildin g u p o f a theor y o f connoisseurshi p wa s a proces s that involve d th e majo r Europea n countries . Jonatha n Richardson , th e British painter , collector , an d write r t o who m w e shal l rever t a t th e end o f thi s chapter , wa s no t onl y a connoisseu r himself ; h e als o gives a clear pictur e o f connoisseurship i n hi s day and , wha t i s more important , emphasizes a certai n aspec t o f connoisseurshi p tha t wa s t o becom e a central an d characteristi c featur e o f thi s activity . A goo d connoisseur , Richardson claims , mus t avoi d prejudice. 76 Wha t h e probabl y intend s to sa y i s tha t th e connoisseu r canno t b e a critic , no r ca n h e b e a n advocate o f a certai n styl e o r manner . I n thi s respect , Richardso n set s off clearl y (thoug h h e doe s no t sa y so ) connoisseurshi p fro m ar t theory , as it was practiced durin g th e Renaissance . I n the fifteenth an d sixteent h centuries, writer s o n ar t wer e usuall y convince d tha t ther e wa s onl y one "true " o r "correct " wa y o f painting , an d the y naturall y trie d t o influence painter s t o follo w thi s way . Richardso n believe s tha t th e connoisseur shoul d refrai n fro m preachin g a gospel . Whil e i t woul d b e vastly exaggerate d t o clai m fo r Jonatha n Richardso n th e moder n ide a o f a "value-free " approac h t o art , i t remain s tru e tha t h e though t tha t th e connoisseur shoul d no t b e concerned wit h a comparison o f values a t all . As th e connoisseu r i s no t a criti c wh o ca n discriminat e th e bette r from th e wors e becaus e h e ha s a reliable yardstic k b y which t o measur e values, s o h e i s no t a n educato r wh o intend s t o shap e th e ar t o f th e present an d future . Her e again , on e sees ho w connoisseurshi p graduall y removes itsel f fro m Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e ar t theory . I n thos e periods, author s o f ar t theor y ha d thei r ow n generatio n i n mind , o r claimed—not alway s convincingly—tha t the y wishe d t o shap e th e ar t of th e presen t an d future . Thi s wa s s o eve n when , t o a larg e extent , their studie s an d writing s actuall y deal t wit h antiquitie s o r wit h th e history o f paintin g an d sculpture . I t i s sufficien t i n thi s connectio n t o So

The Early Eighteenth Century remember th e writing s o f Vasar i an d o f Bellori . I n th e writing s o n connoisseurship compose d aroun d 170 0 o r shortl y thereafter , th e per spective change s appreciably . Richardso n speakin g o f connoisseurshi p disregards th e creatin g artis t o f hi s day . Claim s o f educatin g th e nex t generation o f artist s an d o f improvin g thei r wor k becom e thinne r an d lose significance . If waiving th e clai m t o judge an d to educat e implie s inevitabl e losses , it als o afford s certai n gains . The mos t importan t amon g th e latte r i s a catholicity o f tast e tha t mus t hav e struc k earl y eighteenth-centur y audiences a s truly universal. Le t me mention a s an example tha t curiou s aristocrat an d professo r a t Leipzig , J . F . Christ , wh o i n 172 6 publishe d a monographic stud y of the Germa n Renaissance painte r Luca s Cranach. 77 Because th e autho r ha d littl e literar y materia l t o rel y on , h e ha d t o draw hi s knowledg e fro m th e picture s themselves , an d s o i t i s natura l that hi s idea s o n connoisseurshi p pla y a n importan t part . The carefu l observer, h e claims , shoul d no t trus t to o muc h i n signature s o r mono grams. (I t i s wort h recordin g i n thi s contex t tha t i n 174 7 Chris t published th e first book on monograms.) H e should recognize th e work s of th e master s b y discernin g thei r spirit , character , an d manner . T o b e able t o d o this , h e ough t t o acquain t himsel f wit h th e work s o f al l periods an d al l schools . Th e ide a o f ar t history—h e actuall y employ s the ter m "histor y o f art" a generation befor e Winckelmann , thoug h no t as a title—serve s a s a framewor k fo r a trul y comprehensiv e connois seurship. Moder n ar t historian s ma y find i t entertainin g tha t fo r J . F . Christ a n ampl e collectio n o f engravings—th e reproduction s o f tha t time—served a s th e materia l basi s fo r acquirin g th e intimat e knowl edge o f th e ar t of different period s an d schools. Let m e conclud e thi s brie f sketc h o f connoisseurshi p i n th e first half of th e eighteent h centur y wit h a n example fro m France . A . J. Dezaillie r d'Argensville publishe d anothe r Abrege des vies des peintres (1745 ) tha t w a s much read , reprinted , an d translated . Question s o f connoisseurship come u p frequently , an d great attentio n i s devote d t o th e classificatio n of ar t int o "schools. " Lik e som e o f th e othe r writer s o f tha t period , Dezaillier d'Argensvill e ask s ho w on e goe s abou t attributin g a pictur e to a schoo l o r a master , and , a s wit h th e othe r authors , h e see s i n comparison th e ke y t o th e solution . Bu t unlik e mos t othe r writers , h e Si

Modern Theories of Art makes compariso n a littl e mor e specific . Painter s ofte n hav e som e peculiarities, an d noticin g the m ma y ai d i n identifyin g thei r works . Th e works o f som e master s sho w particula r facia l expressions , the y d o th e hair an d beard s i n a specia l manner , the y prefe r a particula r fal l o f garments, shar p o r sof t contours , accuratel y o r carelessl y painte d hand s and feet , shor t o r lon g fingers, smal l sof t folds , an d eve n a certai n direction o f th e brus h stroke s i n shading . H e give s som e eye-openin g examples. Thu s h e single s out Parmigianin o fo r th e long , delicate fingers of hi s figures. I n shading , fo r example , Giuli o Roman o proceed s fro m right t o left , an d wher e th e shadow s ar e heavies t th e line s o f th e brushstrokes cros s eac h other . Hi s head s hav e fine features , bu t th e contours o f his figures ten d t o b e vague, sometimes becomin g altogethe r indistinct. A s oppose d t o th e Italia n maste r (wh o i s her e characterize d in a n unusua l manner) , Rembrandt' s shadin g i s irregular , an d th e attitude o f hi s figures i s given b y frequen t retouching . Th e detail s o f hi s pictures remai n inaccurat e an d unfinished ; i t i s only th e tota l impressio n of a wor k tha t show s Rembrandt' s intention. 78 Here w e watc h connoisseurshi p slowl y emergin g fro m th e somewha t indistinct shap e tha t resulte d fro m th e intuitiv e approach . Ne w foc i o f observation graduall y crystalliz e a s lookin g a t a pictur e an d comparin g it wit h othe r painting s become s a mor e structure d process . Th e contri bution o f thes e observations , originall y regarde d a s rathe r modest , wa s profound an d lasting . I t rescue d th e theoretica l approache s o f ar t fro m vagueness an d a stric t followin g o f abstrac t norm s tha t i s alway s i n danger o f becomin g anemic . Antiquarian s an d connoisseurs , i n thei r love fo r minut e an d meticulou s learning , discovere d a whol e ne w dimension o f lookin g a t paintin g an d sculpture .

IV. TH E ARTIST S I. INTRODUCTIO N

The artist s o f th e earl y eighteent h century , perhap s eve n mor e tha n th e philosophers o f th e age , testif y i n thei r writte n legac y t o th e characte r of the perio d a s an ag e of transition . Th e treatise s compose d b y painter s P52

The Early Eighteenth Century in th e first generation o f th e centur y offere d th e reade r a curious blen d of traditiona l thought s an d pattern s o f composition , inherite d fro m Renaissance an d Baroqu e ar t literature , an d themes , emphases , an d points o f vie w tha t wer e ofte n ne w an d tha t sometime s prove d eve n revolutionary. Thi s curiou s blen d ma y b e take n a s a n indicatio n o f th e momentous transformatio n tha t wa s takin g plac e a t th e time . Eve n though i n th e earl y decade s o f th e centur y th e proces s wa s subterran ous, a s i t were—breakin g int o th e open , a s w e know , onl y i n th e middle o f th e century—som e o f th e artist s wer e obviousl y sensitiv e enough t o perceiv e thes e a s ye t invisibl e transformations . I n thei r writings, a s ofte n als o i n thei r paintings , th e artist s o f th e earl y eight eenth century lac k th e profundity , th e liveliness , and the originality tha t we experience d i n th e literar y legacie s o f a n Albert i o r a Leonardo , a Durer o r a Zuccari , a Poussi n o r eve n som e academicians . Ye t fo r a better understandin g o f th e furthe r developmen t o f ar t theory , fro m the mid-eighteent h centur y t o ou r ow n day , i t i s worthwhile t o analyz e what th e artist s o f th e first hal f o f th e eighteent h centur y sai d a s carefully a s we ca n withi n th e limit s o f th e presen t study . A few preliminar y remark s concernin g th e conditions—intellectual , social, an d otherwise—fro m whic h thes e treatise s emerge d ma y hel p us t o focu s o n wha t i s characteristic an d ne w i n them . Th e featur e tha t instantly catche s one' s ey e i s tha t th e mos t importan t document s o f art theory composed b y artists of this period originated in northern Europe , England, an d th e Netherlands . Italy , th e classica l countr y o f ar t theory , was a t th e tim e th e captiv e o f it s ow n gloriou s past , an d eve n France , still unde r th e powerfu l impac t o f wha t wa s going o n i n th e Academy , had littl e ne w t o say . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o as k wha t migh t hav e motivated thi s shif t fro m th e Sout h t o th e North , fro m on e civilizatio n to another . I t i s o f som e interest , however , an d ma y b e wort h noting , that i n thi s ver y generation, i n th e earl y eighteent h century , th e signifi cance o f natura l environmen t o n th e developmen t o f intellectua l life , and particularly o f art, was carefully considered , an d a variety of natural conditions explored . I t wa s non e othe r tha n th e Abb e Dubo s wh o investigated wha t natura l conditions , an d particularl y wha t climate , might contribut e t o explainin g th e phenomeno n o f geniu s an d t o a n understanding o f th e cyclica l developmen t o f cultura l history . Dubo s S3

Modern Theories of Art anticipated muc h that , mor e tha n a centur y later , becam e th e famou s doctrine o f Hippolyt e Taine. 79 But whateve r th e explanation , th e ma p o f ar t theory , an d wit h i t th e cultural tradition s an d actua l artisti c models , graduall y changed . I t wa s particularly Englan d that , a s on e knows , bega n earl y i n th e centur y t o exert a profoun d influenc e o n th e aestheti c though t o f th e Europea n continent. Shaftesbur y gav e a ne w tur n an d urgenc y t o th e ancien t problem o f creativity , t o th e proble m o f th e artis t an d hi s inspiration , stirring philosophica l though t mainl y i n Germany . A shor t whil e late r emerged th e grea t traditio n o f Englis h ar t theor y tha t wil l reappea r frequently i n th e page s o f thi s book . Dutc h painter s emerge d a s impor tant contributor s t o ar t theor y a t th e beginnin g o f th e eighteent h century, an d onl y on e generatio n late r Germa n philosopher s an d paint ers bega n t o mak e thei r mark . I t goes withou t sayin g tha t thes e change s in territoria l distributio n introduce d a great variet y o f artisti c tradition s and almos t necessaril y le d t o th e manifestatio n o f ne w problems . In th e whol e o f wester n an d centra l Europe , bu t possibl y wit h particular significanc e i n th e "new " countries , socia l condition s wer e undergoing dramati c changes . Mos t importan t fo r ou r purpos e i s th e training o f th e artist . Ital y an d France , countrie s wit h establishe d academies o f art , wer e possibl y les s affecte d b y thi s proces s i n th e earl y eighteenth century , thoug h the y to o mus t hav e fel t th e differences . I n the first hal f o f th e centur y th e worksho p educatio n o f th e artis t reached th e final stag e o f it s disintegration . I n hi s well-know n boo k o n the academie s o f art , Nicola s Pevsne r ha s adduce d som e interestin g statistical informatio n tha t shed s light , eve n thoug h indirectly , o n wha t must hav e bee n goin g o n i n th e workshops . Aroun d 1720 , only thre e o r four institution s bearin g th e nam e o f Academy o f Ar t coul d b e regarde d as rea l academies , functionin g regularl y an d actuall y educatin g th e nex t generation o f artists . Betwee n 172 0 an d 1740 , onl y si x mor e suc h institutions wer e opened , an d eve n thes e fe w wer e o f a rathe r dubiou s value. B y 1790 , however, wel l ove r a hundred academie s o f art o r publi c art school s wer e flourishing. 80 Betwee n 174 0 an d 1790 , a veritabl e outburst o f academi c activit y affectin g th e educatio n o f th e artis t too k place, full y an d definitivel y transformin g th e wa y a n artis t wa s trained . S4

The Early Eighteenth Century It is surely no t to o muc h t o conjectur e tha t in th e generation precedin g that unprecedente d increase , tha t is , i n th e first generatio n o f th e eighteenth century , theorie s o f ar t an d th e though t o f artist s wer e i n a state o f profoun d crisis . On e imagine s tha t i n th e though t o f th e artist s something simila r t o wha t w e hav e see n i n th e philosophers ' though t was happening : a n invisible , subterranea n revolutio n that , i n th e nex t generation, wa s t o brea k int o th e open . Vic o an d Dubo s hav e shown u s that thoug h th e majo r transformatio n remaine d invisibl e fo r th e mo ment, som e indication s o f th e grea t proces s wer e revealed . I s th e sam e true fo r wha t th e painter s an d sculptor s thought ? Wha t d o th e artist s themselves tel l us ? The views prevailing among the artists of the first eighteenth-century generation—and particularl y amon g thos e o f the m wh o coul d b e described a s "progressive"—ca n b e learne d mainl y fro m tw o works , Het Groot Schilderboek b y th e Dutc h painte r Gerar d d e Lairesse , an d An Essay on the Theory of Painting b y the British painter Jonathan Richardson . These book s enjoye d grea t popularit y a t th e time , an d thei r wid e diffusion testifie s tha t they said what people wished to hear. The treatis e by Gerar d d e Lairess e appeare d originall y i n Amsterda m i n 1707 , an d was reprinted , i n th e origina l Dutch , i n 171 2 an d 1740 . A Frenc h translation appeare d i n 171 9 and was reprinted i n 1787 , while a German translation wa s publishe d i n 172 8 an d reprinte d i n 1780 . Richardson' s work als o me t wit h obviou s success . Hi s Essay on the Theory of Painting was originall y publishe d i n 171£ , an d onl y a few year s later , i n 1719 , i t was reprinte d i n a n enlarge d version , which , i n turn , wa s reprinte d i n 17 2£. A French translatio n appeare d i n 1728 . The commercia l succes s an d wide distributio n o f these tw o works — no smal l achievemen t whe n measure d b y early eighteenth-century stan dards—raises th e importan t questio n o f th e audienc e tha t actuall y bought, an d presumabl y als o read , thes e larg e volume s o f no t alway s gripping prose . Tha t questio n lead s u s t o another , thoug h closel y related, query : wha t audienc e di d th e author s o f thes e bulk y work s originally hav e i n mind ? All thi s ultimatel y boil s dow n t o thi s question : what wa s th e purpos e o f ar t theor y i n th e mind s o f th e artist s compos ing it ? Di d Gerar d d e Lairess e an d Jonatha n Richardso n wis h t o help , SS

Modern Theories of Art and thereb y als o direct , th e painte r i n th e worksho p whil e h e wa s standing i n fron t o f hi s canvas , o r wa s i t rathe r thei r wis h t o explai n the proble m o f paintin g t o th e general educate d public ? So far a s I know, ther e ar e n o specific studie s o n th e earl y eighteenth century reader s o f thes e particula r treatises . A sociological investigatio n of ar t theor y (an d o f th e visua l art s i n general ) remain s a n importan t and urgen t desideratum ; s o far , n o rea l attemp t ha s bee n mad e t o fill the gap , an d I canno t conside r mysel f competen t t o ventur e a detaile d hypothesis. Sinc e th e externa l evidenc e tha t migh t b e use d t o answe r our question s i s scan t an d unexplored , w e mus t attemp t t o for m a n opinion o n th e basi s o f the text s themselve s an d o f their broa d historica l context. I n readin g an d discussin g th e treatise s b y Richardso n an d d e Lairesse, w e wil l hav e t o kee p ou r question s i n mind , an d i t ma y the n be possibl e fo r u s t o suggest , I hope i n som e detail , who constitute d th e audience fo r thes e Northerners * work s o n ar t theory . W e shal l the n se e that, unde r th e cove r o f a rathe r traditiona l presentation , th e tw o authors raise d ne w an d origina l problems , an d addresse d a reade r wh o was neithe r a craftsma n who , lik e medieva l artists , wa s bein g provide d with a "do-it-yourself " manual , no r a Renaissanc e humanis t wh o ap proached ar t fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f a ric h literar y tradition , an d frequently seem s t o hav e believe d tha t a n abundanc e o f classica l quota tions woul d suffic e hi m i n unriddlin g th e secret s o f painting . Th e audience tha t bot h Gerar d d e Lairess e an d Richardso n wishe d t o address wa s n o longe r profoundl y impresse d wit h th e displa y o f shee r technical skil l an d master y o f th e medium ; i n wha t thes e artist s say , th e virtuoso seem s t o b e dethroned . Neithe r d o shee r literar y erudition , th e subtlety o f allegorica l reference , an d th e evokin g o f historica l memorie s continue t o constitut e th e unquestione d pea k o f artisti c achievement . The painte r o f istoria, although no t openl y disparage d a s i n th e late r nineteenth century , seem s t o b e losin g tha t almos t sacre d groun d h e had hel d a t leas t sinc e th e day s o f Alberti . T o b e sure , craf t wa s appreciated an d th e literar y allusio n highl y regarded . Bu t th e emphasi s seems t o hav e lai n somewher e else , bot h fo r th e audienc e an d th e artists. With th e advantag e o f hindsigh t w e ca n sa y tha t th e theme s tha t were slowl y emergin g i n th e first hal f o f th e centur y wer e th e realit y o f S

The Early Eighteenth Century the wor k o f ar t an d th e particula r mode s o f existenc e o f th e differen t types o f pictures . Originall y thes e theme s wer e obscure , a s ar e th e words w e ar e usin g here , bu t i n th e cours e o f th e first decade s o f th e eighteenth centur y the y graduall y becom e clearer . A t first, th e artist s reflecting i n writin g o n thei r wor k don e i n pain t di d no t posses s th e concepts an d categorie s necessar y t o dea l appropriatel y wit h th e prob lems tha t emerge d i n thei r thought . Gerar d d e Lairesse' s extensiv e discussion o f th e "genres " i n paintin g i s a seriou s attemp t t o com e t o grips wit h wha t w e hav e calle d mode s o f existence . Richardson' s exploration o f th e Sublim e ma y b e anothe r contributio n t o th e sam e problem. W e shal l no w tur n t o them . 2. GERAR D D E LAIRESS E

A modern reade r (o r spectator ) ma y find i t difficul t t o understan d wha t made Gerar d d e Lairess e s o popula r i n hi s ow n day , bu t ther e ca n b e no doub t tha t h e wa s greatl y appreciate d bot h a s a painte r an d a s a writer o n art . Jea n Baptist e Descamps , a painter wh o betwee n 17^ 3 an d 1763 publishe d a monumenta l histor y o f th e ar t o f hi s ow n time , La vie des peintres Jlammands,allemands et hollandais, describe d Gerar d a s a "Dutsc h Poussin;" th e onl y detaile d descriptio n o f a paintin g tha t w e hav e b y Johann Joachi m Winckelman n i s o f a wor k b y Gerar d d e Lairesse ; an d no lesse r min d tha n Goeth e rea d hi s writin g carefully. 81 Gerar d himself , although a successful painter , obviousl y fel t th e nee d t o reflec t upo n hi s craft an d calling . Afte r a n earlier , an d rathe r brief , Principes du dessin (1701), h e publishe d hi s grea t theoretica l work , Le grand livre des peintres ou Fart de la peinture (1707) , in tw o heav y volumes . In th e Prefac e t o th e Grand livre Gerard explain s hi s motivatio n fo r writing th e treatis e an d ho w i t was composed. Referrin g t o hi s blindnes s at th e tim e o f writin g ( a misfortun e h e ha d i n commo n wit h anothe r great figure i n th e theor y o f art , Giovann i Paol o Lomazzo) , h e mention s two centra l impulse s fo r composin g th e treatise : lov e o f hi s art , an d th e desire t o b e helpful t o th e youn g painter . S o far, h e remarks , th e writer s who hav e treate d o f paintin g hav e indulge d themselve s i n "pompou s praises" o f tha t ar t rathe r tha n endeavore d t o trac e it s "sur e princi ples." 82 This , then , i s wha t h e wishe s t o do : t o giv e th e youn g painte r S7

Modern Theories of Art the "sur e principles " of his work. I n itself, thi s ai m i s not new . Precisel y during th e Italia n Renaissanc e ther e wer e innumerabl e proclamation s o f it. However , abstrac t theor y ("pompou s praises" ) doe s no t attrac t him . What h e envisage s come s a s clos e a s possibl e t o a "practical " book . This book , h e furthe r notes , h e ha s "compose d i n fragments, " a char acterization clearl y born e ou t b y th e no t ver y systemati c orde r o f th e text itself . It woul d b e futil e t o loo k i n th e Grand livre for a n overal l composi tional principle . I n th e Italia n Renaissance , whe n th e independen t ar t theoretical treatis e wa s born , author s an d probabl y als o thei r audience s insisted o n a transparentl y rationa l structure . "T o mak e clea r m y exposition i n writin g thi s brie f commentar y o f painting, " s o read s th e very first sentenc e o f Leon e Battist a Alberti' s treatis e On Painting, " I wil l take firs t fro m th e mathematician s thos e thing s wit h whic h m y subjec t is concerned . Whe n the y ar e understood , I wil l enlarg e o n th e ar t o f painting fro m it s first principle s i n natur e i n s o fa r a s I a m able." 83 Alberti's work , writte n a s earl y a s 143^ , set th e ton e fo r th e ar t theor y of th e Renaissance . A treatise , everyon e a t tha t tim e seem s t o hav e taken fo r granted , first ha d t o la y ou t basi c an d genera l principles ; onl y after havin g don e thi s shoul d th e autho r se t ou t t o deriv e fro m thes e tenets, proceedin g systematically , hi s mor e specifi c an d detaile d obser vations an d eve n th e practica l rule s addresse d t o th e practicin g artist . About thre e centurie s later , whe n Gerar d d e Lairess e se t ou t t o compose hi s Grand livre, the intellectua l climat e ha d change d an d so , i t seems, ha d th e aim s o f art theory . Jus t liste n t o th e openin g sentenc e o f Gerard's Livre: "Ther e ar e tw o differen t handling s o f brushes: one suave , mellow an d smoothl y finished, th e othe r bold , intrepi d an d vigorous." 84 However interestin g thi s distinctio n ma y b e i n itself , an d whateve r th e sensitivity i t ma y revea l towar d th e artist' s craf t an d th e pictoria l value s of a painting , on e canno t bu t wonde r wha t mad e Gerar d ope n hi s wor k with suc h a sentence . Th e Grand livre is a ver y lon g wor k (o f wel l ove r 1,000 pages ) an d deal s wit h a wid e rang e o f th e problem s tha t ma y b e raised b y th e stud y o f art . T o ope n suc h a monumenta l wor k o n painting wit h som e acut e observation s o n type s o f brushstroke ma y lea d the reade r t o expec t a moder n homag e t o th e artist' s individualit y a s expressed i n hi s "handwriting. " Th e reade r wh o entertain s suc h expec -

ts

The Early Eighteenth Century tations wil l b e disappointed . Gerar d d e Lairess e i s to o clos e t o th e academic ag e an d spiri t t o hol d suc h view s o r aims . Thoug h h e ha s a keen ey e fo r distinguishin g betwee n differen t way s o f usin g th e brush , he doe s no t overestee m th e brushstrok e i n general . Brushstroke s don' t have a valu e o f thei r own . A pictur e i s completed , h e instruct s hi s readers, whe n al l trace s o f work hav e bee n blotte d out ; a t th e end , "on e does no t leav e o n th e wor k an y trac e o f th e brush." 85 Tha t a painte r could allo w himsel f t o b e identifie d b y hi s brushstrokes—hi s "hand writing,'' a s w e woul d sa y today—woul d probabl y hav e appeare d t o him a seriou s deviatio n fro m a goo d norm , a dange r th e artis t shoul d foresee an d overcome . Thi s disregar d fo r th e individualisti c persona l manner ofte n show s i n hi s work . I n hi s discussio n o f portrai t painting , to give bu t on e example , w e read : "Abov e al l th e painte r shoul d bewar e not t o adop t a particula r manner , a s som e master s hav e done ; so tha t i t is easie r t o identif y th e brus h tha n th e perso n o f who m th e portrai t i s made." 8 6 This criticis m increase s ou r bewildermen t a t Gerard' s openin g hi s comprehensive treatis e wit h a n observatio n o n type s o f brushstroke . The solutio n t o thi s riddl e ca n b e gathered fro m th e first chapte r o f th e Grand livre, from whic h w e hav e quote d th e openin g sentence . "Art, " we her e learn , "i s a theor y o r a productio n o f th e mind (esprit); whereas manner (maniere) i s nothin g bu t a practice (pratique) o r manua l executio n that depend s o n a certai n skil l i n appropriatel y employin g th e brus h and layin g ou t th e color s i n a suitabl e way. " O f th e "mind, " le t u s sa y in advance , w e d o no t hea r muc h i n th e res t o f thi s bulk y work . T o b e sure, ther e i s a considerabl e amoun t o f codifie d cultura l symbolis m i n the Grand livre, particularly i n th e detaile d an d specifi c discussion s o f th e "meanings" th e individua l color s carry . Speculation s o n th e Min d o r the Spirit , however , ar e no t i n keepin g wit h Gerard' s personality . Hi s heart lie s elsewhere , wit h th e "manners " an d wha t hang s togethe r wit h them. Ther e h e tim e an d agai n stresse s th e nee d fo r "suitability. " Nowhere i n thi s lon g boo k doe s Gerar d d e Lairess e tel l u s just wha t a manne r is . H e obviousl y too k i t fo r grante d tha t ever y reade r o f hi s work woul d kno w wha t h e ha d i n mind . Ye t i f the reade r indee d wishe s to understan d thi s notio n wit h som e precisio n h e i s lef t wit h th e tas k of reconstructin g i t fro m variou s hint s disperse d throughou t th e book . £9

Modern Theories of Art Nor i s hi s tas k mad e easie r b y Gerard' s usin g th e ter m i n a loos e wa y and i n a grea t variet y o f contexts . I t i s therefor e difficul t t o propos e a formal definition . Th e cor e o f th e notion , on e tha t i s preserve d i n al l the variou s formulations , consist s o f a congruou s relationshi p betwee n two poles , a relationshi p ou r autho r frequentl y call s "suitability. " Wha t these pole s ar e i s suggested i n th e first chapte r o f th e work . "Everything ca n b e reduce d t o tw o manner s o f operating, " a s w e remember, th e tw o type s o f brushstrokes . I n addition , however , ou r author say s tha t "ever y kin d o f paintin g ha s it s own , differen t manne r of operation. " Gerar d d e Lairess e list s the m i n detail . "Th e landscap e painter ha s hi s [manner ] fo r paintin g th e foliag e o f trees ; th e painte r o f animals ha s anothe r [manner ] fo r hid e an d wool ; th e still-lif e painte r employs anothe r [manner ] fo r th e velvetnes s an d variegatio n o f flowers."87 This shor t lis t o f differen t type s o f painters , give n withi n th e narro w confines o f a singl e sentence , correspond s largel y t o th e divisio n int o "books" o f th e majo r par t o f Gerard' s Grand livre. Th e kind s o f painting , genres, as the y ar e calle d i n th e Frenc h edition , ar e Gerard' s centra l problem. T o understan d an d properl y appreciat e hi s contributio n on e has t o analyz e th e proble m o f "kind s o f painting, " an d se e wha t exactl y are th e individua l kind s h e adduces . Befor e w e se t ou t t o presen t wha t Gerard ha s t o sa y abou t th e individua l classe s o f painting , w e shoul d perhaps paus e fo r a momen t an d defin e th e genera l notio n o f "kind " a little mor e specifically . Gerard d e Lairesse , i t nee d hardl y b e stressed , di d no t inven t th e division o f th e "ar t o f painting " int o large , comprehensiv e units . Th e idea tha t th e bewilderin g mas s o f pictures—extan t an d possible — should b e arrange d i n a fe w basi c classe s ha s a lon g an d ric h history . Within tha t traditiona l matrix , however , Gerard' s divisio n i s wort h attention, an d shoul d b e studie d bot h fo r th e insight s i t ma y affor d int o actual ar t an d fo r th e testimon y i t bear s t o th e intellectua l climat e i n which ar t wa s contemplate d i n th e earl y eighteent h century . W e shal l begin b y comparin g Gerard' s "kind s o f painting " wit h th e olde r at tempts a t suc h structuring . The mos t significant o f th e olde r notion s tha t come s t o min d i n th e present contex t i s tha t o f "mode " (modus). Underlying a grea t dea l o f 60

The Early Eighteenth Century Renaissance speculatio n o n art , thi s notio n wa s full y articulate d i n th e Baroque period . Nicola s Poussin' s lette r o f 164 7 t o Pau l Frear t Chante lou i s no w probabl y th e best-know n documen t o f thi s developmen t i n Baroque ar t theory . Borrowin g hi s terminolog y fro m th e theor y o f ancient an d Renaissanc e music , Poussi n spok e o f "modes " (modi) o f painting. Wha t h e ha d i n min d i n usin g thi s ter m wer e fundamenta l emotional characters . Th e Doria n mode , h e says , i s "stable , grav e an d serene;" th e Phrygia n mod e fit s "pleasan t an d joyou s things; " th e "Hypolidian mod e contain s a certai n suavit y an d sweetnes s whic h fills the sou l o f th e spectator s wit h joy ; i t lend s itsel f t o subject s o f divin e glory, an d paradise." 88 We shoul d kee p i n min d tw o characteristic s o f th e concep t o f modus as i t wa s understoo d i n th e seventeent h century . Th e first on e i s obvious: emotiona l qualitie s ar e th e fundamenta l principl e determinin g the artisti c modes . Thes e emotiona l qualitie s d o no t necessaril y corre spond t o type s o f paintings . Picture s belongin g t o al l th e mode s men tioned abov e woul d i n fac t for m a singl e categor y i n bot h Gerard' s an d even th e Renaissanc e views : the y woul d al l b e multifigur e composition s in whic h huma n figures ac t unde r th e impac t o f emotions . Bu t othe r kinds o f paintin g coul d als o easil y b e mad e t o manifes t th e differen t modes. W e ca n wel l imagin e a "stable , grav e an d serene " landscap e a s opposed t o a "pleasan t an d joyous " on e o r on e filled wit h a "certai n suavity an d sweetness. " Thoug h i t woul d b e mor e difficul t t o appl y these mode s t o portrai t paintin g (thoug h eve n thi s i s not impossible) , i t is agai n eas y t o thin k o f stil l life s exhibitin g thes e emotiona l traits . Th e system o f modes i s one tha t altogethe r disregard s th e syste m o f pictoria l genres. Gerar d d e Lairesse' s lis t o f "kind s o f painting " thu s canno t b e derived fro m th e theor y o f modes . The othe r characteristi c o f modus i s th e explici t assumptio n o f a congruity betwee n th e emotiona l characte r an d th e for m i n whic h th e picture i s shaped . I n othe r words , a "mode " i s no t jus t a mood , th e emotional natur e o f a certai n subjec t matter , bu t rathe r th e wa y i n which thi s moo d o r subjec t matte r i s pictoriall y represented . Therefor e the "mode " coul d b e conceive d a s a specificall y artisti c category . Aca demic doctrin e too k ove r th e notio n i n thi s particula r sense . Henr i Testelin, th e lat e seventeenth-centur y secretar y an d theoreticia n o f th e 61

Modern Theories of Art Paris Academ y o f Art , insistentl y repeat s th e traditiona l reques t tha t al l parts o f a paintin g partak e o f th e characte r o f th e subjec t represented , so tha t th e emotion s th e wor k seek s t o evok e ca n b e brough t t o lif e immediately.89 Here , i n thi s genera l deman d o f th e mode , Gerar d follows th e model , an d repeat s th e traditiona l requests . Other developments , bot h i n th e art s themselve s an d i n aestheti c reflection, shoul d als o b e mentioned; the y loo m larg e i n th e backgroun d of Gerard d e Lairesse' s doctrin e o f the "kinds " of painting. Conspicuou s among thes e development s i s th e emergenc e an d crystallizatio n o f pictorial genre s a s ar t form s i n thei r ow n right . Th e establishmen t o f the genre s wa s a centra l proces s i n th e artisti c an d intellectua l worl d o f the seventeent h an d eighteent h centuries . Aroun d 1600 , still life , genr e painting, an d self-containe d landscape s bega n t o evolv e a s mor e o r les s autonomous species . Th e portrait , a s w e know , ha d fo r centurie s bee n accepted a s a self-sufficient , articulat e ar t for m i n paintin g an d sculp ture. I t i s a matter o f commo n knowledg e tha t i n thi s proces s norther n Europe playe d a crucia l part , an d eve n i n Ital y th e emergenc e o f th e pictorial genre s di d no t tak e plac e withou t th e activ e participatio n o f northern, mainl y Flemis h an d Dutch , artists . Gerar d d e Lairess e thu s knew th e crystallizatio n o f genres a t first hand . We ar e no t concerne d wit h th e histor y o f ar t itself , an d i n th e present contex t w e shal l therefor e onl y briefl y observ e whether , an d how far , ar t theor y aroun d 170 0 was awar e o f th e developmen t tha t th e generation witnessed . O n th e whole , ar t theor y wa s slo w i n comin g t o terms wit h th e variet y an d independenc e o f pictoria l genres . Th e nobl e art o f histor y paintin g hel d prid e o f place , almost t o th e exclusio n o f al l other form s (excep t th e portrait) . Eve r sinc e Leon e Battist a Albert i ha d written i n 143 ^ tha t "Th e greates t wor k o f th e painte r i s th e istoria" and 'Istoria gives greate r renow n t o th e intellec t tha n an y colossus," 90 this vie w remaine d dominan t fo r almos t thre e centuries . I t governe d not onl y theoretica l opinio n bu t wa s reflecte d i n specifi c judgment s an d in man y othe r ways . Ho w dogmati c th e belie f i n th e superiorit y o f history paintin g was , and ho w widel y ramifie d wa s it s influence , w e ca n see—to adduc e onl y one , somewha t farfetche d illustration—fro m th e way exhibition s o f painting s wer e arrange d i n eighteenth-centur y Paris . The grea t canvase s depictin g historica l scene s wer e place d o n th e top ; 62

The Early Eighteenth Century below the m cam e smalle r paintings , ofte n representin g les s nobl e o r elevated themes . Jea n Seznec , wh o ha s calle d attentio n t o thi s feature , has correctl y notice d tha t histor y painting s wer e "no t o n to p i n th e physical sens e only." 91 Bu t whil e th e suppose d superiorit y o f the histor y painting i s well known , w e ar e les s wel l informe d abou t th e relationshi p between th e othe r pictoria l genres . Wer e the y conceive d a s on e mass , juxtaposed a s suc h t o nobl e histor y painting , o r wer e the y see n a s par t of a structured system , eac h capabl e o f bein g arrange d o n a scale ? The question , perhap s no t full y articulated , wa s obviousl y i n th e air . In 166 7 Andr e Felibien , wh o ca n b e considere d th e spokesma n o f Poussin's doctrine , delivere d a lectur e t o th e Academ y o f Fin e Art s i n Paris i n whic h h e mad e a contributio n t o ou r problem . H e starte d b y reminding hi s listener s tha t paintin g i s a n intellectua l pursuit ; mixin g colors an d drawin g line s d o no t qualif y on e a s a n artis t bu t rathe r a s a craftsman. H e the n wen t o n t o sho w ho w an d i n wha t wa y paintin g concerns th e mind . Insofa r a s artist s concer n themselve s wit h mor e difficult an d mor e nobl e object s the y emerg e fro m th e lowe r region s o f their ar t an d ris e t o a mor e dignifie d status . Fo r instance , th e mos t excellent ar e th e artist s wh o represen t a group o f dramati c figures i n a subject borrowe d eithe r fro m histor y o r mythology . Nex t come s th e portrait painter ; thoug h h e represent s th e huma n figure, h e ha s no t ye t reached th e summi t o f painting . Th e painte r wh o depict s portraits , however, rank s highe r tha n hi s fello w artis t wh o render s onl y fruit , flowers, o r shells . Th e painte r wh o represent s livin g animal s deserve s more estee m tha n th e on e wh o depict s onl y lifeles s things . Stil l life , then, seem s t o b e th e lowes t degre e i n thi s system. 92 Felibien delivere d hi s lectur e onl y on e generatio n befor e Gerar d d e Lairesse wrot e hi s Grand livre, summarizing hi s idea s tha t surel y reflect , to a larg e extent , accepted , conventiona l wisdom . I t i s worth emphasiz ing som e element s i n Felibien' s concepts ; i n compariso n wit h the m th e novelty, a s wel l a s th e link s wit h tradition , o f Gerard' s syste m ma y become manifest . Le t u s stress, first, tha t Felibie n list s all major pictoria l genres, som e o f the m clearl y wit h Dutc h ar t i n mind , suc h a s th e depiction o f animals . Second , thes e pictoria l genre s ar e arrange d i n a hierarchic system , eac h ar t grade d an d assigne d it s plac e o h th e scale . Now le t u s com e bac k t o Gerar d d e Lairesse . Wha t distinguishe s hi s 63

Modern Theories of Art approach t o th e "kind s o f pai n ting/' whe n compare d t o th e modi of Poussin o r th e "species' * mentione d b y Felibien , become s almos t tangi ble. Gerard' s "kind s o f painting " ar e neutra l i n expressiv e character , they hav e n o emotiona l characte r o f thei r own , an d therefor e the y ar e indifferent t o th e moods . Th e universa l maxim , "Variet y i s th e sou l o f pleasure," 93 i s als o vali d fo r th e genre s o f painting . Therefore , ou r author claims , yo u ca n hav e differen t emotiona l character s withi n a single "kin d o f painting. " Le t u s loo k a t a singl e example , a t wha t h e says abou t landscap e painting . Gerar d d e Lairesse , perhap s agains t hi s own will , was stil l deepl y roote d i n th e mythographi c tradition ; i t i s no t surprising, therefore , tha t h e list s som e mythologica l motif s tha t coul d appropriately b e depicte d i n landscap e settings . On e o f the m i s th e story o f Venu s an d Adonis , a stor y tha t i n th e seventeent h centur y provided a n excus e fo r quit e a fe w almos t pur e landscapes . Fro m th e narrative Gerar d pick s thre e moments : (i ) Venu s lavishin g caresse s o n Adonis; (2 ) Adonis , preparin g fo r th e hunt , bid s farewel l t o Venus ; (3 ) Venus finds th e dea d bod y o f he r belove d Adonis . Thes e thre e stage s are, i n fact , th e embodimen t o f thre e emotiona l state s an d ca n thu s b e considered a s demandin g representatio n i n thre e differen t modes . Th e natural settin g i n eac h o f th e scenes—tha t is , th e landscape—i s described a s full y reflectin g th e moo d characteristi c o f th e actio n takin g place. I n th e first picture , showin g Venu s caressin g Adonis , "th e sit e i s a deliciou s field, wher e on e finds everythin g tha t ca n sooth e th e sight; " it i s " a beautifu l sprin g day, " th e "ligh t i s on e o f a radian t sun." 94 Th e scene represente d i n th e secon d pictur e i s one o f conflict . Th e painter' s way o f showin g th e natura l settin g partakin g i n th e mora l natur e o f th e event i s to plac e dramati c element s o n eithe r sid e of th e picture . T o th e right, Gerar d suggests , "a n elevation " ( a mountain ) shoul d b e seen ; i t i s apparently high , a s i t ca n b e climbe d onl y i n severa l stages . T o th e left , between th e cente r o f th e paintin g an d th e frame , ar e see n "thre e o r four beautifu l trees , beginnin g fro m th e groundlin e an d reachin g abov e a hill; " i n th e background , behin d th e trees , "ther e rise s a bi g roc k o f savage mien." 95 I n th e thir d picture , th e dea d Adoni s i s see n lyin g a t the foo t o f a might y oak , leanin g hi s hea d agains t it s trunk . Behin d th e oak on e see s a cloud y sky . "Th e seaso n i s rain y an d cloudy , a winte r day. . . . The tree s hav e onl y a few leaves." 96 64

The Early Eighteenth Century Two lessons , i t seems , ca n b e learne d fro m thi s singl e example . O n the on e hand , th e landscap e i s decidedl y a mediu m o f manifestin g emotions, th e natura l features—th e field, th e trees , th e hill s an d rock s —participate i n th e feeling s pervadin g th e action s represented . O n th e other hand , w e als o see tha t landscap e a s such, a s an articulat e ar t form , is devoi d o f an y emotiona l leaning s o r characte r o f it s own . Landscape , like th e othe r genre s o f painting , i s capabl e o f expressin g differen t emotions becaus e i t ha s non e o f it s own . Wit h regar d t o expression , then, Gerard' s "kind s o f painting " ar e altogethe r oppose d t o th e mode s in sixteenth - an d seventeenth-centur y ar t theory . Felibien's "species " o f paintin g diffe r fro m Gerard' s "kinds " i n a n altogether differen t way . I n listin g th e individua l genres , Felibie n an d Gerard largel y overlap , thoug h ther e ar e significan t divergences . Ye t they ar e altogethe r divide d wit h regar d t o th e principl e dominatin g th e grouping o f th e individua l genre s an d establishin g a n orde r betwee n them. Felibien , i t wil l b e recalled , buil t a hierarchi c structure , a ladde r of pictoria l "species. " Gerar d d e Lairess e see s n o hierarch y o f pictoria l classes an d therefor e doe s no t ran k on e "kind " highe r tha n th e other . This i s no t t o sugges t tha t Gerar d treate d al l element s o r motif s i n painting a s o f th e sam e valu e o r a s i f ther e wer e n o nee d t o prefe r on e to th e other . Withi n eac h "kin d o f painting, " Gerar d doe s no t doubt , various object s hav e differen t values . Again, a single example wil l clearl y show hi s intention . I n th e Elevent h Boo k o f th e Grand livre, that dealin g with stil l life , h e refer s t o th e variet y o f objects tha t ca n b e represented . "Now I wil l leav e i t t o th e judgmen t o f connoisseur s an d sensitiv e people," h e continues , t o decid e "whic h ar e th e nature-object s tha t merit preferenc e ove r others." 9 7 Whil e h e doe s no t hesitate , then , t o accept th e principl e o f discriminatin g betwee n th e mor e o r les s merito rious withi n eac h clas s o f picture , h e refuse s t o appl y thi s principl e t o the "kinds " a s such . Th e moder n studen t i s forced t o conclud e tha t fo r Gerard d e Lairess e al l pictoria l genre s were , i n principle , o f equa l value . The equivalenc e o f pictoria l genre s i s testimon y t o a historica l shif t of far-reachin g consequence ; i t shoul d b e reckone d amon g th e mos t telling sign s o f th e arriva l o f modernity . Wha t i t suggest s i s tha t th e value o f a wor k o f ar t i s n o longe r dependen t o n it s subjec t matter . This i s a secularizatio n o f painting . Instea d o f th e dignit y o f subjec t *S

Modern Theories of Art matter, o f th e ide a expressed , anothe r valu e emerges , indifferen t t o th e theme depicted . I t wa s non e othe r tha n th e grea t Germa n philosophe r G. W . F . Hege l who , a centur y afte r Gerar d d e Lairess e publishe d hi s Grand livre, articulate d th e essenc e o f thi s transformation . H e argue d that th e "Dutc h replace d th e interes t i n significan t subjec t matte r wit h an interes t i n th e mean s o f representatio n a s an en d i n itself." 98 Having considere d Gerard' s genera l notio n o f pictoria l genres , le t u s now tur n t o th e "kind s o f painting " h e actuall y gives . I shall star t wit h a brie f commen t o n th e lis t a s a whol e an d shal l the n discus s som e o f the individua l "kinds. " Sinc e Gerard' s "kind s o f painting " d o no t for m a rationa l system , wher e on e par t follow s fro m th e othe r b y logica l necessity, thei r natur e an d scop e mus t b e explaine d b y th e historica l reality fro m whic h the y emerged . The ar t historia n doe s no t hav e t o b e tol d tha t artisti c productio n i n seventeenth-century Hollan d wa s dominate d b y a hithert o unknow n specialization i n th e histor y o f painting . Paintin g wa s practicall y spli t into variou s types , o r "kinds, " o f secula r subjec t matter , eac h typ e tending t o acquir e a definit e shap e o f it s own . Th e categorie s o f landscape, stil l life , scene s fro m everyda y life , an d s o fort h originate d i n the latte r hal f o f th e sixteent h century , bu t i t wa s onl y durin g th e seventeenth tha t the y becam e full y define d a s pictorial types . A s churc h commissions becam e steadil y scarcer , th e nee d t o cate r t o popula r tast e became a n increasingl y powerfu l motivatin g forc e i n givin g definit e form t o thes e types . Moreover , subtype s crystallize d i n th e process . Landscape, fo r instance , becam e eithe r th e depictio n o f a regula r piec e of nature , o r a n imag e o f a cit y (cityscape) , o r o f th e se a (seascape) , with a variet y o f furthe r subtypes . Whe n thi s proces s ha d reache d it s apogee, paintin g i n th e Netherland s presente d a gallery o f full y forme d "kinds." The compositio n o f Gerard' s list , th e presenc e o r absenc e o f certai n categories, als o indicate s th e origi n o f hi s though t i n contemporar y historical reality . Th e notion s an d categorie s h e employ s reflec t wha t we kno w fro m Dutc h ar t o f the seventeent h century . Thus , i n th e Grand livre, religious subjec t matte r doe s no t for m a "kind " o f painting , an d i n general i t i s ver y littl e mentioned . Protestan t iconoclasti c zeal , i t i s wel l known, wa s particularl y widesprea d i n th e Netherlands . I n actua l paint 66

The Early Eighteenth Century ing, th e representatio n o f sacre d theme s wa s severel y reduced , an d ar t forms servin g religious ritua l (such as the altarpiece) almost disappeared . Gerard's categories, or rather the conspicuous absenc e o f some of them, reflect thi s stat e o f affairs . Th e subjec t matte r o f "history " paintin g proper—that is , gloriou s historica l events , an d mainl y mythologica l stories—is mor e frequentl y adduced . I t ofte n serve s t o enlive n som e types o f paintin g whic h belon g t o on e o f th e accepte d "kinds. " A good example, whic h w e hav e alread y mentioned , i s tha t o f th e stage s o f th e story o f Venu s an d Adonis , use d t o accentuat e differen t mood s o f landscape. However , whil e th e theme s o f "history " paintin g ar e fre quently mentioned , the y d o no t for m a "kind" in thei r ow n right ; the y are not accepte d a s one o f th e majo r parts of painting. To appreciat e ho w fa r remove d Gerar d d e Lairess e wa s fro m th e traditional syste m o f pictoria l "kinds, " it wil l b e enough t o compar e hi s list o f genre s wit h tha t o f Giovannn i Paol o Lomazzo , th e las t grea t Renaissance theoreticia n o f art. Gerar d is much more concentrate d tha n Lomazzo. I n th e las t par t o f th e Trattato della pittura, a part devote d t o "practice," Lomazz o adduce s ten s o f categories , thu s leavin g th e reade r with th e feelin g o f som e rathe r blurre d diffusiveness . I n comparison , Gerard's seve n "kinds " give th e impressio n o f bein g firmly structured . Yet th e differenc e i n th e natur e o f th e categorie s i s muc h mor e profound. Lomazzo , hei r t o humanisti c learnin g an d writin g unde r th e powerful impac t o f th e Counter-Reformation , extensivel y discusse s religious themes , a s th e painte r shoul d kno w an d se e them . H e als o explores i n grea t detai l th e subjec t matte r o f istoria, devoting muc h attention t o bot h mytholog y an d allegories . Religiou s an d mythologica l themes ar e categories , o r genres, i n thei r ow n right . Bu t Lomazz o doe s not kno w o f an y classe s o r type s o f picture s devote d t o landscap e o r still life . Betwee n Ital y i n 1^84 , whe n Lomazz o wrot e hi s Trattato, and the Netherland s i n 1707 , whe n th e Grand livre was published , a n almos t complete reversa l too k place , bot h i n actua l ar t an d i n th e theor y reflecting o n th e problem s i t raises . At first, the individua l genre s discusse d b y Gerard de Lairess e seem a rather od d mixture . Landscap e (Boo k VI) , portrai t (Boo k VII) , stil l lif e (Book XI) , and flowers (Book XII ) do no t surpris e us; they are art form s to whic h w e hav e becom e accustomed . Bu t "ceilin g painting " also get s 67

Modern Theories of Art a boo k o f it s ow n (IX) , becaus e "amon g al l th e kind s o f paintin g ther e is non e mor e difficult." 99 Tha t i n a treatis e o n paintin g architectur e should als o ge t a lon g discussio n (Boo k VIII ) ma y see m eve n mor e surprising, bu t th e autho r explain s a t th e openin g o f th e boo k tha t h e will no t dea l wit h architectur e a s suc h bu t onl y insofa r a s a n acquain tance wit h "tha t fine art " i s usefu l fo r th e painter . I n th e boo k o n architecture h e include s a shor t bu t ver y interestin g chapte r o n ruins , a highly topica l them e i n eighteenth-centur y painting. 100 Th e boo k o n sculpture i s rathe r isolate d i n th e Grand livre. The emphasi s th e autho r places o n relie f ( a them e rarel y touche d b y Italia n writer s o n sculptur e in th e seventeent h century ) agai n indicate s tha t th e tridimensiona l ar t i s actually see n fro m a painter' s poin t o f view . Th e las t boo k (XIII) , devoted t o engraving s an d th e use s tha t ca n b e mad e o f them , i s a n afterthought. Reviewin g th e book s o n th e differen t genres , one ma y stil l find som e odditie s an d unexpecte d combinations , ye t th e dominan t concern i s clear: everythin g i s seen wit h a painter' s eye . What a n individua l "kin d o f painting " i s and wha t i t involves , I shall try t o sho w b y analyzin g on e example . Nowher e perhap s ar e Gerard' s originality a s wel l a s hi s limitation s s o manifes t a s i n hi s treatmen t o f still lif e (Boo k XI ) t o whic h th e discussio n o f flowers (Boo k XII ) shoul d be appended . Eve n a brie f analysi s o f wha t h e ha s t o sa y abou t stil l lif e will show , I hope , tha t Gerar d stand s midwa y betwee n tw o grea t ages . Past an d futur e clearl y mee t i n hi s work , an d thi s meetin g i s ofte n a transformation o f th e ol d int o th e new , bu t sometime s als o a clas h between them . Perhap s fo r thi s reaso n Gerard' s treatmen t o f stil l lif e is , as Geor g Kauffman n notice d i n a useful article, 101 diffus e an d "brittle. " That Gerard' s treatmen t o f stil l lif e i s hesitan t shoul d surpris e n o one. Thoug h painter s produce d man y stil l lifes—i n seventeenth-cen tury Holland , bu t als o i n Franc e an d i n othe r countries , stil l lif e paintin g became a veritabl e industry—contemporar y critic s an d philosopher s o f art wer e slo w i n comin g t o term s wit h thi s flourishing ar t form . Eve n in th e mos t comprehensiv e treatise s o f ar t theor y compose d i n th e lat e eighteenth century , stil l lif e i s ofte n omitte d o r onl y marginall y men tioned. I t wa s onl y i n th e nineteent h centur y tha t critics , lookin g a t ar t and it s histor y fro m a n altogethe r moder n poin t o f view , discovere d still lif e a s a n artisti c genr e i n it s ow n right , wit h it s ow n distinc t 68

The Early Eighteenth Century problems. I n his tim e Gerar d d e Lairess e wa s isolate d i n hi s theoretica l concern wit h stil l life , an d hi s pioneerin g effort s i n thi s particula r domain hav e no t ye t receive d th e attentio n the y deserve . Gerard doe s not , a s a rule , giv e a forma l definitio n o f th e "kin d o f painting" h e i s discussing . I n th e book s o n portrai t an d landscape , fo r example, w e shal l loo k i n vai n fo r a rigi d statemen t o f wha t precisel y the subjec t matte r o r portrai t o r landscap e is . This ma y b e becaus e th e "aim" of eac h give n genr e seeme d t o hi m s o obviou s tha t n o explana tion wa s calle d for . I n th e cas e o f stil l life , however , h e deviate s fro m his norma l procedure . Th e ai m o f stil l life , Gerar d explains , "i s t o render al l th e inanimat e [th e Dutc h edition s has : al l th e still ] objects , such a s flowers, fruits , vases , utensils , an d musica l instrument s o f al l metals, a s wel l a s marble , stones , wood . . . ." 102 Her e a n attemp t i s made t o outline th e scop e o f still life , perhap s als o to emphasiz e wha t i s essential i n tha t genre , namel y th e materia l natur e o f th e object s routinely encountere d i n everyda y experience . Historie s ar e repre sented, w e hav e hear d sinc e th e Renaissance , fo r thei r nobl e subjec t matter o r fo r th e religiou s messag e the y convey ; portrait s ar e painte d to kee p aliv e th e memor y o f th e deceased , o r t o hono r ruler s o r poets . But why depic t a fruit, a utensil, o r a piece o f wood ? Gerard d e Lairess e doe s no t spel l ou t th e question . Bu t th e reader , attentive t o ton e an d context , wil l no t find i t to o difficul t t o extract a n answer fro m Gerard' s prose . Ther e are , i n fact , tw o differen t answers , placed side b y side an d often eve n interpenetrating . Stil l lif e a s a theme in painting , t o follo w Meye r Schapiro , correspond s t o a field of interes t outside art . W e sens e this , without havin g to refe r t o a particular cause, when w e not e th e gradua l separatio n o f stil l lif e a s a n independen t subject i n th e sixteent h century , o r th e fascinatio n wit h i t i n seven teenth-century painting . Th e object s chose n fo r still-lif e representatio n —flowers, fruits , vases , implements , an d manipulate d material s (suc h as stones o r wood)—belon g t o th e specifi c domain s o f th e private , th e domestic, th e gustatory . "Simpl y t o not e thes e qualitie s i s t o sugges t a world view." 103 It i s no t fo r u s t o decid e wha t wer e th e motivation s tha t prompte d this worl d view . Wa s i t th e appetit e fo r sensua l experience , o r wa s i t rather th e surrende r t o th e tangibl e realit y o f material objects ? Gerard's 69

Modern Theories of Art text ca n b e rea d i n suppor t o f bot h explanations . H e obviousl y enjoy s the colo r an d textur e o f objects , an d stresse s tha t th e painte r shoul d choose suc h object s tha t "flatte r th e eye. " Bu t h e als o indicate s hi s complete absorptio n i n th e tangible , materia l realit y o f objects . I t i s a sin agains t th e rules , Gerar d says , t o introduc e int o a stil l lif e element s of othe r "kind s o f painting, " suc h a s landscape , architecture , o r huma n beings. "Tha t woul d absolutel y destro y th e ide a o f stil l life. " Neverthe less, i n hi s treatmen t o f othe r kind s o f painting—portrait , landscape , and s o o n — h e doe s no t mak e simila r demands . Th e puzzl e ma y b e solved whe n w e remembe r tha t thi s "idea " denote s th e worl d o f object s that ar e nothin g bu t materia l objects , th e domai n o f shee r tangibl e things. Probabl y t o preserv e th e objec t characte r o f these things , Gerar d makes stil l anothe r request : i t i s a "matte r o f principle " tha t th e object s of a stil l lif e shoul d no t b e represente d smalle r tha n the y ar e i n nature. 104 Sensual deligh t i n beautifu l object s o r th e impac t o f shee r materialit y are no t th e onl y motive s fo r reproducin g i n ar t th e image s o f everyda y objects; frequentl y on e paints , an d enjoys , suc h picture s becaus e stil l life ca n b e mad e int o a carrier o f symboli c messages . "I t i s not impossi ble," say s Gerard , "t o giv e t o stil l lif e paintin g a n allegorica l meaning , as i s applicabl e particularl y t o certai n figures." 105 Example s o f stil l life s carrying allegorica l meaning s ca n b e found , h e goe s on , i n th e picture s of Wille m Kalf , whos e work s th e youn g artis t wishin g t o devot e himsel f to thi s field o f paintin g woul d d o wel l t o study . Thi s Dutc h painter , a s one knows , use d t o represen t elaborat e gold , silver , an d glas s vessels , glittering object s o f great value , endowing the m wit h symboli c message s of deat h an d th e fragilit y an d vanit y o f huma n lif e an d materia l posses sions. H e i s a goo d exampl e o f th e well-know n genr e o f Vanita s stil l life, a typ e o f paintin g particularl y commo n i n seventeenth-centur y Holland. I n suc h paintings , i f we ar e t o follo w th e interpretatio n offere d in th e Grand livre (i t wa s a n interpretatio n broadl y accepte d a t th e time) , the shining , tangibl e objec t lose s i t shee r opaqu e materialit y an d be comes a medium tha t let s symboli c idea s shin e through . How doe s symboli c though t wor k i n stil l life ? Ho w d o materia l objects becom e th e transparen t carrier s o f abstrac t ideas ? Gerar d d e Lairesse, thoug h h e doe s no t pu t th e questio n i n thes e words , i s 70

The Early Eighteenth Century profoundly concerne d wit h it . H e want s t o discove r th e permanen t patterns b y whic h meaning s ar e transmitte d i n still-lif e painting . Sym bolic objects , al l o f the m inherite d fro m classica l antiquity , ar e on e o f the establishe d channel s o f investin g th e domesti c objec t wit h a n invisible, ye t clearl y perceptibl e meaning . Thes e classica l objects , w e know, evoke d certai n specifi c connotations , th e audienc e reacte d t o them i n specifi c ways , an d the y cam e t o b e accepte d a s th e carrier s o f these specifi c meanings . Howeve r thes e object s cam e t o b e investe d with symboli c power , on e canno t hel p wonderin g abou t thei r plac e within th e categor y o f still-lif e painting . T o b e sure , the y wer e inani mate, ye t the y wer e hardl y househol d possessions . Roma n cuirasse s an d crowns wer e rarel y foun d eve n i n bette r Dutc h homes . I f still-lif e painting purpose s t o depic t mor e o r les s ordinar y objects , i t i s difficul t to mak e thes e ancien t symboli c artifact s fit int o th e conceptua l fram e of th e genre . Gerar d evidentl y devote s suc h a large par t o f his discours e on stil l lif e t o thes e object-symbol s becaus e o f hi s desir e t o institution alize th e rol e o f stil l lif e a s a carrie r o f ideas . I n th e actua l content s o f his discussio n h e i s close t o th e heraldi c readin g o f ancien t remain s an d imagery tha t wa s s o widesprea d i n hi s time . Just liste n t o wha t som e o f these object s are : a stee l cuirass , a beautifu l helmet , a golde n chain , a sword, a scepte r toppe d b y a n eye , triumpha l crowns , Roma n militar y costume a s wel l a s tha t o f othe r people s (Persians , Carthaginians , an d so on) . A ful l lis t woul d probabl y hol d severa l doze n historica l an d symbolic items . Obviousl y w e ar e her e witnessin g th e impositio n o f th e antiquarians' wor k o n th e theor y o f eve n suc h a "modern " branc h o f art a s stil l life . A t th e sam e time , w e als o se e ho w confuse d an d ambiguous wer e view s a s t o wha t stil l lif e a s a categor y o f paintin g really was . Another wa y o f establishin g symboli c meaning s i n stil l lif e i s associ ated wit h th e relationshi p betwee n th e individua l pictur e an d th e patron, o r limite d audience , fo r who m i t i s painted . Th e stil l lif e i s made t o adjus t t o th e functio n an d socia l rol e o f th e patron . Gerar d describes fou r idea l stil l life s don e for , respectively , a victorious warrior , a judge , a jurist, an d a clergyman . Th e picture s diffe r fro m eac h othe r in th e selectio n o f th e symboli c object s represented . Bein g adjuste d t o the patron' s function , the y hel p defin e hi s rol e i n society . In non e o f 7i

Modern Theories of Art the othe r pictoria l genres , i t shoul d b e recalled , i s suc h a n adjustmen t of th e pictur e t o th e patro n eve n considered . Th e general , on e infers , does no t ge t a differen t landscap e o r architectura l piec e tha n th e judg e or clergyman ; no t eve n i n th e portrai t i s th e socia l differentiatio n s o clearly manifeste d a s i n th e stil l life . Stil l lif e i s th e singl e genr e conveying meaning s tha t i s require d t o adjus t itsel f t o th e client . I n thi s Gerard d e Lairess e i s clearl y followin g th e emblemati c traditio n tha t was powerfu l an d popula r i n th e norther n Europ e o f hi s time . Thi s ca n be see n bot h i n th e selectio n o f th e object s appropriat e t o eac h typ e and i n th e explanatio n o f thes e object s tha t th e autho r provides . Th e eleventh boo k o f th e Grand livre, tha t dealin g wit h stil l life , afford s a rar e opportunity t o watc h th e secularizatio n o f emblematic s an d it s transfor mation int o stil l life . Symbolic meaning s nee d no t alway s b e conspicuousl y displayed ; the y can als o follo w mor e subtl e routes . Certai n flowers, fo r example , ar e connected wit h certai n god s an d goddesses ; the y ca n symbolicall y represent thes e gods an d perhap s als o what thes e gods stan d for . Natur e provides a variet y o f flowers, an d eac h o f them , Gerar d emphasizes , ha s different qualitie s tha t mak e i t appropriat e fo r depiction . "Th e whit e lily i s dedicate d t o Juno ; th e sunflowe r t o Apollo ; th e ros e t o Venus ; the popp y t o Dian a an d Morpheus ; the cor n flower t o Ceres. " 106 Fruits , too, hav e affinitie s wit h th e gods. "Th e pomegranat e i s granted t o Juno ; vine branche s a s wel l a s figs belon g t o Bacchus ; peache s an d whea t t o Ceres an d Isis ; apple s t o Venu s an d Apollo. " Th e sam e i s als o tru e fo r that othe r favorit e featur e o f stil l lifes , musica l instruments : "th e lyr e i s consecrated t o Apollo , th e Muses , and t o Mercury ; th e flute t o Pa n an d Venus; th e trumpe t t o Mars . . . ," 1 0 7 Th e whol e worl d o f "inanimate " objects, i t turn s out , i s covered b y a fine networ k o f symbolic meaning s and relations . Yo u canno t approac h a simpl e object , yo u canno t ste p into thi s domai n o f everyda y thing s withou t gettin g enmeshe d i n thi s symbolic fabric . Ever y seemingl y innocen t flower piec e o r stil l lif e combining som e vin e branche s o r apple s i n fron t o f a casuall y place d flute ma y thu s carr y a n encode d emblemati c message . Th e spectato r enjoying th e pictur e i n front o f him ma y hav e n o inklin g o f the symboli c depth o f wha t h e sees . Th e color s themselves , eve n whe n the y ar e th e colors o f a flower o r a fruit , ar e carrier s o f meaning . Th e yello w 72

The Early Eighteenth Century sunflower, th e re d rose , th e whit e lilly : the y ar e al l permeate d wit h meanings. 108 Choosin g on e o r th e othe r i s a handling o f symbols . Let u s no t forget , however , tha t i n Gerard' s treatmen t o f stil l lif e there i s still anothe r trend , alon g wit h th e emblemati c attitude , an d thi s one i s strikingly modern . Th e ver y objects—th e flowers, th e fruits , th e musical instruments—whos e symboli c dimension s ar e stressed , ar e described i n a manne r tha t make s u s altogethe r forge t an y emblemati c attitude. Le t u s loo k a t a singl e example . I n th e treatmen t o f flowers, only a few page s afte r th e passage s just quoted , w e read : "M y intentio n is t o for m a larg e mas s o f beautifu l flowers i n brigh t colors , placin g i n the middl e th e thickes t an d mos t vigorou s one , suc h a s th e whit e ones , the yellows , thos e o f a livel y red . Th e talles t . . . wil l b e a sunflower ; and a t th e side s I will plac e other s o f les s beautifu l colors , mixin g the m here an d ther e wit h a beautifu l blue." 1 0 9 Th e reade r i s amazed . I s thi s the sam e write r wh o attribute s flowers an d fruit s t o god s know n onl y from books , an d wh o simultaneousl y describe s a flower piec e wit h suc h vividness o f perceptio n an d enjoymen t o f colo r sensatio n tha t on e cannot eve n thin k o f a possibly symboli c aspec t o f hi s subjec t matter ? Gerard's view s o f stil l life—amon g hi s mos t origina l contribution s — a r e typica l o f hi s notion s o f th e othe r "kind s o f painting " an d o f hi s doctrine a s a whole . Th e clas h betwee n attitudes , betwee n th e tradi tional an d th e modern , withi n th e teachin g o f th e sam e writer , marks , perhaps mor e tha n anythin g else , th e specifi c positio n h e hold s betwee n the ages . I t perhap s als o specificall y characterize s th e first hal f o f th e eighteenth centur y a s a n ag e o f rapi d transition , preparin g th e grea t changes tha t wer e abou t t o tak e plac e i n th e middl e o f th e century . 3. RICHARDSON : TH E RIS E O F TH E SUBLIM E

The proces s o f transformatio n tha t introduce d th e moder n ag e compel s the studen t o f ar t theor y constantl y t o redra w hi s map . Fo r man y centuries th e grea t school s o f ar t theor y wer e t o b e foun d i n Italy , an d to Ital y scholar s al l ove r Europ e turne d wheneve r matter s o f paintin g and sculptur e wer e discussed . Onl y i n th e seventeent h centur y di d France an d th e Netherland s (and , t o a lesse r degree , othe r countries , such a s Spain ) acquir e i n thi s field a statu s tha t coul d b e regarde d a s 73

Modern Theories of Art independent. Sinc e th e Middl e Ages , Englan d ha d playe d a rathe r marginal rol e i n articulatin g thought s o n paintin g an d sculpture , bu t i n the eighteent h centur y i t emerge d strongl y i n thi s field, burstin g fort h with a surprisin g creativity . A wid e rang e o f intellectua l type s no w entered thi s domain , an d new , origina l problem s wer e raised . Th e English contributio n t o ar t theor y mad e a n immediat e impac t o n aesthetic though t i n Europe , an d thu s becam e a part o f a comprehensiv e process. In th e periodizatio n o f Englis h aestheti c though t i n th e eighteent h century w e usuall y follo w th e patter n generall y accepte d fo r othe r countries, namely , tha t th e chie f contribution s ar e clustere d i n th e middle an d secon d hal f o f th e century . A glanc e a t th e date s o f th e outstanding work s woul d see m t o confir m thi s impression . Thus , t o give bu t a fe w examples , Edmun d Burke' s A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful appeare d i n 17^7 , William Hogarth' s The Analysis of Beauty in 17^3 , and Joshu a Reynolds' s Fifteen Discourses on Art wer e delivere d t o th e Roya l Academy , o f whic h Reynolds wa s a member , o n ceremonia l occasion s fro m 176 9 t o 179 0 and wer e publishe d individually . Ye t i n spit e o f wha t thes e date s see m to imply , th e first hal f o f th e centur y i n Englan d wa s on e o f productiv e growth. Th e trend s tha t wer e t o com e int o th e ope n b y mid-centur y were quietl y bu t powerfull y ripenin g i n th e earlie r decades . Moreover , at th e beginnin g o f th e centur y som e importan t contribution s wer e actually made , an d the y evoke d a livel y respons e o n th e Europea n continent. Earlie r i n thi s chapte r I mentione d Shaftesbury ; no w I shal l turn t o a les s philosophica l treatise , compose d an d publishe d i n th e early eighteent h century . I t i s th e literar y wor k o f Jonathan Richardso n (166^—174^), who wa s assiste d b y hi s son , Jonathan th e Younge r (1694— 1771). Th e Richardsons , fathe r an d son , wer e painters , critics , an d collectors. Thei r reflection s o n paintin g ar e significan t bot h a s a testi mony t o th e though t curren t amon g Britis h painter s i n th e first decade s of th e centur y an d a s a n adumbratio n o f som e o f th e grea t problem s and trend s tha t dominate d lat e eighteenth-centur y though t and , partic ularly, Romanticism . Jonathan Richardso n th e fathe r i n his tim e wa s a well-known portrai t painter. Fro m hi s teacher , Joh n Riley , h e inherite d a stif f an d solem n 74

The Early Eighteenth Century manner, whic h h e furthe r propagate d i n th e schoo l h e founde d (calle d St. Martin' s Lan e Academy) . Hi s majo r impact , however , wa s mad e through hi s books . Th e first, An Essay on the Theory of Painting, appeare d in 171£ , an d i n a n enlarge d versio n i n 172 5 (t o whic h anothe r brie f treatise, Two Discourses, originall y publishe d i n 1719 , wa s added) . Wit h his so n h e als o wrot e a guide boo k (An Account of the Statues, Bas Reliefs, Drawings and Pictures in Italy, France, etc., Londo n 1722 ) tha t enjoye d a great reputation ; th e nobl e an d educate d wh o wen t o n th e Gran d Tou r employed i t widel y an d too k i t wit h them , an d Winckelman n stil l thought that , i n som e respects , i t wa s th e bes t boo k writte n o n th e visual arts. 110 In th e presen t context , i t i s o f cours e th e first work , An Essay on the Theory of Painting, wit h whic h w e ar e concerned . Most part s o f th e Essay d o no t offe r an y ne w message . Th e studen t of ar t theor y feel s h e i s treadin g familia r ground . Th e conservativ e character o f Richardson' s though t i s no t surprising ; o f a n autho r o f hi s artistic orientatio n an d socia l positio n on e doe s no t expec t th e preach ing o f a ne w gospe l o r th e proclaimin g o f somethin g tha t migh t undermine th e norm s accepte d i n his time an d world . Onl y wit h respec t to one , thoug h admittedl y rathe r central , issu e doe s th e autho r o f th e Essay contriv e th e seemingl y impossible : t o closel y follo w som e widel y known an d accepte d idea s and , a t th e sam e time , t o mak e a n origina l contribution t o ar t theory . Her e th e interactio n o f th e differen t cultura l traditions wa s s o comple x tha t on e doubt s whether , i n fact , ou r autho r was altogethe r awar e o f ho w origina l h e was . Th e issu e I hav e i n min d is his discussio n o f th e Sublim e i n painting . The Sublime , i t nee d hardl y b e said , i s an age-ol d problem . Inherite d from Antiquity , i t wa s t o som e exten t revive d i n Renaissanc e aestheti c thought, an d certai n aspect s o f i t wer e extensivel y examine d i n th e critical literatur e o f th e seventeent h century . Ye t throughou t tha t eventful history , th e Sublim e wit h a capita l S , tha t is , a s a conceptua l category, remaine d firmly enclose d i n literar y criticis m an d theory . I t was no t systematicall y expande d t o includ e th e othe r arts . T o b e sure , ever sinc e th e sixteent h century , philosophers , critics , an d artist s re flecting o n paintin g o r sculptur e di d occasionall y touc h o n th e Sublime , but the y neve r conceive d o f i t a s a categor y i n thei r ow n deliberations . It i s symptomatic tha t i n th e vas t Renaissanc e literatur e o n paintin g an d IS

Modern Theories of Art sculpture, a literatur e tha t abound s i n crystallizin g a ne w an d compre hensive terminolog y fo r th e visua l arts , n o ter m wa s coined , o r used , for th e sublime . Eve n i n th e seventeent h century , whe n interes t i n th e sublime wa s pronounce d i n al l fields o f literature , i t hardl y appeare d o n the horizo n o f th e write r o n th e visua l arts . Roge r d e Pile s onl y onc e mentions le Sublime et le Merveilleux i n hi s Traite de peinture parfait, a wor k that appeare d i n 1699 , and eve n her e i t i s included i n a short chapte r o f less tha n a pag e stressin g tha t th e Gran d Gusto , th e Sublim e an d th e Marvellous ar e th e same. 111 A fe w year s later , i n 171£ , Richardso n included i n hi s Essay a length y an d detaile d discussion , extendin g ove r thirty-three pages , o f th e sublim e i n painting. 112 H e i s als o th e first t o expressly adduc e pictoria l example s fo r thi s category . I t i s n o exaggera tion t o clai m tha t hi s chapte r constitute s th e first rea l discussio n o f th e sublime i n painting , an d tha t w e her e witnes s th e introductio n o f thi s notion int o th e theor y o f th e visua l arts . I n th e followin g observations , I shall concentrat e o n thi s on e contributio n o f Richardson's . All discussion s o f th e sublim e i n Europea n history , w e nee d hardl y remind ourselves , go bac k t o on e ancien t document , th e Peri Hupsos (O n the Sublime ) attribute d t o Longinus , a Gree k rhetoricia n o f th e thir d century A.D . I t i s no t fo r u s t o discus s thi s famou s text , t o whic h man y fine studie s hav e bee n devoted , bu t i n orde r t o bette r understan d eighteenth-century ar t theor y I shal l emphasiz e som e o f it s specifi c points. Th e effec t o f th e sublime , s o Longinu s suggests , i s t o tak e th e spectator "ou t o f himself. " Whe n ma n encounter s th e sublime—i n nature, i n huma n life , o r i n th e arts—i t "lift s hi m up. " This i s also tru e for th e effec t o f art . Referrin g t o literature , Longinu s said : " A loft y passage doe s convinc e th e reaso n o f th e reade r whethe r h e wil l o r not. " Being carrie d away , take n ou t o f oneself , swaye d whethe r on e will s i t or not—thes e reaction s woul d see m t o stan d i n marke d contras t t o the value s fo r whic h work s o f visual art s hav e bee n traditionall y praised , such a s a harmon y o f th e part s tha t impart s calmness , precision , an d a conviction o f th e natura l characte r o f th e representation . Ca n on e infe r that th e sublim e i s more appropriat e t o th e narrativ e tha n t o th e visuall y evident, t o literatur e tha n t o paintin g an d sculpture ? Now , interestingl y enough, Longinu s ca n i n fac t b e rea d t o tha t effect . Th e sublim e i s found i n natur e an d als o i n literature , bu t no t i n th e visua l arts . "I t ha s 76

The Early Eighteenth Century been argue d b y on e writer, " h e says , "tha t w e shoul d no t prefe r th e huge disproportione d Colossu s t o th e Doryphoru s o f Polycletus . Bu t (to giv e on e ou t o f man y possibl e answers ) i n ar t w e admir e exactness , in th e work s o f natur e magnificence ; an d i t i s fro m natur e tha t ma n derives th e facult y o f speech . Whereas , then , i n statuar y w e loo k fo r close resemblanc e t o humanity , i n literatur e w e requir e somethin g which transcend s humanity." 113 When, i n th e sixteent h an d seventeent h century , concer n wit h th e Sublime revived , ther e wa s littl e chang e i n thi s respect . Th e whol e problem obviousl y wa s no t considere d a s a n importan t one , bu t s o fa r as Longinu s wa s studied , peopl e accepte d wha t h e sai d withou t muc h questioning. Thi s i s also th e impressio n on e get s fro m Boileau' s famous , though no t alway s precise , translatio n o f Longinus ' wor k an d fro m th e great Frenc h traditio n o f interpretin g On the Sublime. Seen agains t thi s background, Jonathan Richardson' s lon g chapter devote d t o th e Sublim e in paintin g stand s ou t a s ver y unusual . Ho w ar e w e t o accoun t fo r thi s novel departure ? Richardso n ma y hav e draw n from tw o differen t sources . The great Frenc h academi c schoo l o f art theor y ma y wel l hav e bee n on e of them . Roge r d e Pile s coul d hav e provide d th e legitimatio n o f intro ducing th e notio n o f th e sublim e int o a discussion o f painting . A s I have already said , hi s Art of Painting (th e origina l editio n o f whic h wa s published i n 1699 , a n ( l t n e Englis h translatio n i n 1706 , onl y nin e year s before Richardso n publishe d hi s Essay) mention s th e sublim e i n a shor t chapter speakin g o f th e Gran d Gusto . "I n painting, " h e say s there , "th e grand Gusto , th e Sublim e an d th e Marvellou s ar e on e an d th e sam e thing." 114 Ye t thoug h Roge r d e Piles' s authorit y wa s important , th e content o f tha t brie f chapte r i s rather meager . Another sourc e o f inspiration , thoug h les s direct , ma y prov e t o hav e been mor e decisive . Th e Longinia n traditio n i n England , trace d wit h much understandin g b y Samue l Monk, 115 mad e visua l experienc e th e major stimulu s o f th e feelin g o f sublimity . Th e emphasi s o n th e visua l in evokin g th e sublim e wa s articulate d durin g th e ver y year s Jonatha n Richardson conceive d an d wrot e hi s Essay on the Theory of Painting. I shall illustrate thi s proces s b y on e example , th e writing s o f Josep h Addiso n (1672—1719). Althoug h writer s lik e Shaftesbur y an d other s ha d bee n discussing th e Sublime , s o Walte r Joh n Hippie , Jr. , write s i n hi s inter 77

Modern Theories of Art esting an d instructiv e study , "i t wa s Addison' s Essay on the Pleasures of the Imagination whic h formulate d th e proble m o f aesthetics i n suc h a fashio n as t o initiat e tha t lon g discussio n o f beaut y an d sublimity." 116 Addiso n did no t us e th e ter m "sublime, " perhaps , a s Samue l Mon k believes , because i t ha d a definitel y rhetorica l ring ; instead , lik e Roge r d e Piles , he employe d th e ter m "great. " H e distinguishe d betwee n th e great , th e uncommon, an d th e beautiful . I n th e discussio n o f th e first, h e repeat edly stresse s bot h th e transcendin g o f boundarie s (th e essenc e o f th e sublime) an d th e visua l origi n o f thi s process . "B y greatness, " h e explains, " I d o no t onl y mea n th e bul k o f an y singl e object , bu t th e largeness o f a whol e vie w considere d a s on e entir e piece. " Suc h plea sures o f th e imagination , b y whic h "w e ar e flung int o a pleasin g astonishment a t suc h unbounde d views , an d fee l a delightfu l stillnes s and amazemen t i n th e sou l a t th e apprehensio n o f them, " aris e "origi nally fro m sights. " Amon g th e example s o f suc h grandeu r h e mention s "a trouble d ocean , a heave n adorne d wit h star s an d meteors , o r a spacious landscap e cu t ou t int o rivers , woods , rocks , an d meadows." 117 But d o thes e visua l affinitie s o f th e sublim e als o affec t man-mad e objects, o r ar e the y restricte d t o untouche d nature ? Th e objec t tha t immediately offer s itsel f fo r inspectio n i s the garden . Aroun d 1700 , tha t well-known discussio n bega n concernin g th e characte r an d shap e o f th e garden, a discussio n i n th e cours e o f whic h th e "formal, " tailore d garden tha t reache d it s apoge e i n seventeenth-centur y Franc e wa s juxtaposed wit h th e seemingl y "wild " typ e know n al l ove r Europ e a s the "Englis h Garden." 118 A s Panofsk y ha s reminde d u s i n a delightfu l study, Shaftesbur y ha d alread y take n par t i n tha t discussion , speakin g out i n favo r o f "al l th e horri d Grace s o f th e Wildernes s itself , a s representing Natur e more. " Addison , criticizin g artificia l regularity , cites th e Chines e wh o "choos e rathe r t o sho w a genius i n work s o f thi s nature. . . . " Echoin g th e traditio n o f revoltin g agains t mathematica l rules, h e says that h e "woul d rathe r loo k upo n a tree i n all its luxurianc y and diffusio n o f bough s an d branches , tha n whe n i t i s thu s cu t an d trimmed int o a mathematica l figure." He , too , distinguishe s betwee n nature an d art . "I f w e conside r th e work s o f natur e an d art , a s the y ar e qualified t o entertai n th e imagination, " h e writes , "w e shal l find th e las t very defectiv e i n compariso n wit h th e former ; fo r thoug h the y ma y 78

The Early Eighteenth Century appear sometime s beautifu l o r strange , the y ca n hav e nothin g i n the m of th e vastnes s an d immensity. " Bu t eve n h e make s a n attemp t t o bridge th e gap , a t leas t i n som e respect , betwee n natur e an d art . I n speaking of the pleasure s o f imagination, o r fancy, h e says, "I here mean such a s arise fro m visibl e objects , eithe r whe n w e hav e the m actuall y i n our view , o r whe n w e cal l u p thei r idea s int o ou r mind s b y paintings , statues, descriptions , o r an y th e lik e occasion." 119 Th e wor k o f art , i t would see m t o follo w fro m wha t Addiso n says , ma y b e inferio r t o nature itself , ye t i t i s capable o f stimulating th e raptur e o f th e sublime . When w e loo k int o th e specifi c characte r o f th e Longinia n traditio n in England , Richardson' s introductio n o f th e Sublim e int o th e theor y o f painting appear s less ou t o f context . Th e differenc e betwee n th e visua l experience o f nature and of the picture tha t represents a piece of nature is after al l no t a n abysma l ga p tha t canno t b e bridged . Bu t dealin g wit h the sublime in the context o f painting would see m t o compel th e autho r to b e mor e specifi c abou t th e practica l meanin g o f th e notion s h e i s using. Wha t indeed , i n Richardson' s view , i s th e Sublim e i n painting ? Were w e t o tak e hi s theoretica l formulation s a t fac e value , i t woul d b e difficult t o find a clea r answe r t o thi s question . Hi s philosophica l "definitions," a s fa r a s on e ma y cal l the m so , sugges t tha t h e wa s no t too clea r i n hi s min d abou t wha t th e sublim e ma y actuall y signif y i n a painter's workshop . Wer e w e t o follo w hi s abstrac t definition s only , w e would hav e t o understan d th e sublim e simpl y a s th e excellen t o r outstanding, a degre e o f excellenc e rathe r tha n a distinc t characte r o r quality. I n th e prefac e t o th e second , enlarge d editio n o f th e Essay, Richardson declares , i n a contex t tha t woul d sugges t th e sublime , th e superiority o f " a fine Thought , Grace , an d Dignity " t o "th e Lesser , t o the mor e Mechanica l Part s o f th e Picture. " Th e sublim e i s rathe r generally define d a s "th e mos t Excellen t o f wha t i s Excellent , a s th e Excellent i s th e Bes t o f wha t i s Good. " I n othe r words , th e sublim e i s just anothe r run g i n th e ladde r o f achievement , i t i s som e kin d o f a "superexcellent." I n discussin g th e sublim e i n literature , Richardso n seems t o b e a little mor e specific , suggestin g som e socia l an d psycholog ical characteristic s tha t hav e a n intrinisi c orientation . Her e h e claim s that th e sublim e i s "th e Greatest , an d mos t Nobl e thought , Images , o r Sentiments, Convey' d t o u s i n th e Bes t chose n Words. " Nobilit y an d 79

Modern Theories of Art greatness ar e no t jus t excellence ; the y hav e a specifi c character . Bu t where Richardso n provide s abstrac t definition s o f th e sublim e i n paint ing, suc h characte r i s lacking . In comin g close r t o actua l painting , Richardson' s tex t get s mor e specific; i t bear s ampl e testimon y t o th e variou s facet s o f tha t grea t transformation t o moder n though t tha t dominate d th e period . Thi s becomes particularl y eviden t i n a small , seemingl y technica l detail . Th e reader i s struck b y Richardson' s renunciatio n o f th e carefu l finish o f th e picture, a hallowe d valu e i n th e worksho p tradition . Th e sublim e ca n be expressed , s o i t follow s fro m wha t ou r autho r says , i n a sketch , a drawing, o r a finished picture . N o preferenc e i s given t o th e complete d work ove r th e othe r forms , whic h fo r centurie s wer e considere d onl y as records o f th e creativ e process , no t a s its result . Th e craftman' s prid e in th e fine polis h characteristi c o f th e finished pictur e wa s particularl y strong i n northern Europe . To see tha t thi s wa s still tru e i n Richardson' s generation, i t i s enoug h t o recal l wha t Gerar d d e Lairess e ha d t o sa y about brushstrokes : th e finished painting , read y t o b e take n ou t o f th e workshop an d presente d t o th e public , i s tha t wher e n o trac e o f brushstroke ca n b e seen , wher e n o vestige s remai n o f th e proces s whereby th e wor k wa s shaped. 120 Gerar d wa s no t bein g polemica l i n stressing thi s point , h e wa s simpl y repeatin g wha t wa s a n articl e o f fait h in th e worksho p mentality . Whe n Richardso n places—a t leas t wit h regard t o th e sublime—th e finished wor k o n th e sam e leve l a s th e sketch an d th e drawing , h e undermine s thi s mentality . I n fact , earlie r i n the Essay th e proble m o f the brushstrok e an d th e final polish ha d alread y appeared. Ther e Richardso n treate d i t a s a merel y mechanica l par t o f the painter' s job ; h e ha s t o adjus t th e brushstrok e t o th e condition s under whic h th e wor k wil l b e seen. 121 I n smal l pictures , mean t t o b e seen from clos e by , brushstroke s shoul d b e delicat e an d carefull y worke d into eac h other , makin g fo r a surfac e tha t wil l b e fine an d smooth . I n large-scale pictures , intende d t o b e see n fro m a greate r distance , th e brushstrokes ca n b e rougher , th e workmanshi p mor e sketchy . Thes e views, eve n i f no t alway s orthodo x i n thei r time , ar e stil l i n accordanc e with th e craftman' s ethos . Bu t wha t h e say s about th e finish wit h regar d to th e sublim e goe s beyon d tha t mentality , whic h ha d s o stubbornl y 80

The Early Eighteenth Century persisted ove r man y centuries . The present-da y reade r canno t hel p recognizing a specifically moder n attitude. Richardson's notio n o f th e sublim e i n ar t i s no t easil y derive d fro m his definition s o r genera l concepts ; i t i s bes t graspe d b y lookin g a t th e pictorial example s h e selects fo r review . H e took hi s examples seriously , much though t goin g int o selectin g them . " I might hav e given example s to m y Purpos e fro m th e Work s o f severa l othe r Masters, " he write s a t the en d o f a lengthy passag e dealin g wit h Rembrandt' s Hundred Guilder Print, "but I mad e choic e o f This , no t onl y a s bein g a t leas t Equall y remarkable wit h th e Bes t I coul d hav e found , bu t t o d o Justice . . . ." The example, then , represents a great deal of meditation. It s significanc e also follow s fro m th e fac t tha t paintin g defie s description . Wh o ca n describe wit h words , Richardso n rhetoricall y asks , what Raphael , Guid o Reni, o r Va n Dyc k di d wit h thei r brushes ? T o explai n th e sublim e i n painting, h e als o relie s o n work s o f art. His first exampl e i s a drawing b y Rembrandt , no w i n th e Municipa l museum i n Bayonne , an d identifie d a s St. Peter's Prayer before the Raising ofTabitha. Richardson then owned th e drawing, and from his description one ca n gues s ho w ofte n an d carefull y h e contemplate d it . (Tha t h e didn't get th e iconograph y righ t i s obvious). The artist , our author says, "has give n suc h a n Ide a o f a Death-Be d i n on e Quarte r o f a Shee t o f Paper in tw o figures with few Accompagnements , an d in Clair-Obscur e only, tha t th e mos t Eloquen t Preache r canno t pain t i t s o strongl y b y the mos t Elaborat e Discourse ; I do no t preten d t o Describ e it , i t mus t be Seen. " Nevertheless h e goes o n t o describ e th e majo r features o f th e composition. "A n Old Ma n is lying on hi s Bed, just ready t o Expire . . . . the So n o f thi s Dyin g Ol d Ma n i s a t Prayer s . . . (ther e is) suc h a Touching Solemnity , an d Repos e tha t thes e Equa l anythin g i n th e Arts. . . ." Th e prayin g figure thinks : "O h God ! Wha t i s thi s World ! Lif e passes away like a Tale tha t i s Old." 122 The othe r exampl e Richardso n adduce s t o illustrat e th e sublim e i n painting i s Federic o Zuccari' s Annunciation. Neithe r th e ange l no r th e Virgin i s particularl y remarkable , th e autho r admits ; bu t a n indicatio n of th e sublim e i s found i n the ope n space , i n th e vas t sk y i n which Go d the Fathe r an d a n infinit e numbe r o f angel s appear . I t i s obviou s fro m 81

Modern Theories of Art his descriptio n tha t i t i s no t thes e heavenl y figures tha t attrac t hi s attention, bu t th e ope n vastnes s itself . Now , vastnes s ha s alway s bee n conceived a s on e o f th e constitutiv e element s o f th e sublime . I n Englis h literature, a s Marjorie Nicolso n remind s u s i n he r stimulatin g discussio n of th e "Aesthetic s o f th e Infinite," 123 i t i s attribute d t o God . "Thos e distances belon g t o Thee, " sai d th e poe t Georg e Herber t i n th e earl y seventeenth century . "Magnificence , vastness , ruin, " t o follo w Mis s Nicholson's quotations , i s particularl y characteristi c o f th e sublime . I n the mid-eighteent h century , a s w e nee d hardl y remark , Edmun d Burk e made vastnes s a definit e categor y o f th e sublime . Richardson' s focusing on th e vas t sk y rathe r tha n o n th e participatin g figures i n Zuccari' s Annunciation has , then , a venerabl e ancestry . On wha t doe s Richardso n concentrat e i n hi s descriptio n o f pictures , such a s Rembrandt' s drawin g an d Zuccari' s painting ? Th e questio n i s not a s od d a s i t ma y appea r a t first glance . W e stil l d o no t hav e a systematic investigatio n o f th e structur e an d literar y form s o f th e descriptions o f paintings , an d therefor e an y observatio n o f change s occurring i n tha t field i s necessaril y base d o n impressions . W e shal l however b e no t to o fa r of f th e mar k whe n w e sa y tha t th e majo r typ e of paintin g descriptio n (o r ekphrasis, a s i t wa s calle d i n Antiquity ) relate s the paintin g a s a n actio n performe d o r a s a n even t takin g place . Thi s narrative structur e o f th e descriptio n ma y t o som e exten t g o bac k t o the Aristotelia n formul a tha t th e object s o f imitatio n ar e th e action s o f men; i t wa s surel y furthe r promote d b y th e rhetorica l tradition . Eve r since th e Renaissanc e i t ha d bee n th e centra l wa y o f readin g a picture . When w e compar e thi s patter n o f descriptio n wit h Richardson' s wa y o f giving a n accoun t o f a work , w e canno t hel p feelin g a certai n shif t o f emphasis. Wha t h e describe s i s less a specific actio n tha n th e general ai r pervading th e painting , a n intangibl e quality . Moreover , tha t genera l ai r is on e tha t admittedl y transcend s th e describable , suc h a s th e terro r o f death o r th e unlimite d vastnes s o f the ope n spaces . To b e sure, Richard son wa s no t th e first autho r t o use , o r suggest , suc h qualitie s i n descriptions o f paintings . Eve n i n th e mos t typica l Renaissanc e descrip tions, suc h a s thos e give n b y Vasari , on e finds adumbration s o f th e ineffable. Bu t a careful readin g o f Richardso n leave s u s with th e impres sion tha t fo r hi m th e hintin g a t th e ineffable , th e suggestio n o f wha t 82

The Early Eighteenth Century cannot b e full y portrayed , i s th e cor e bot h o f painting s an d o f thei r descriptions.

NOTES 1. See , fo r example , Fran k Manuel , The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods (New York, 1967) , pp . 14 9 ff . 2. I n th e entr y date d Marc h 5 , 1787 , o f hi s "Journe y t o Italy " Goethe write s abou t the Scienza Nuova: "I n [his ] fathomles s depth s th e newe r Italia n legist s greatl y refresh themselves . Upo n a cursor y perusa l o f th e boo k [Vico' s Scienza nuova] which the y communicate d t o m e a s a hol y work , i t seeme d t o contai n sibyllin e presages o f th e good an d th e tru e . . . " 3. Se e B . Croce , Aesthetic: As Science of Expression and General Linguistics, trans . D . Ainslie (Ne w York , n.d.) , pp . 22 0 ff. (Chapte r V) . Se e als o Croce' s Die Philosophie Giambattista Vicos (Tubingen , 1927) , p . 40 . Somewha t simila r views hav e als o bee n expressed i n Britis h philosophy . Se e R . G . Collingwood , The Principles of Art (Ne w York, 1958 ; original editio n 1938) , p . 138 . 4. I am her e followin g th e distinction s propose d b y Isaia h Berli n i n Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas (Ne w York , 1977) , pp . 4 5 ff . Se e als o R . Caponigri, Time and Idea: The Theory of History in Giambattista Vico (Notr e Dame , Ind., 1953) , esp . pp . 167 , 17 3 ff. Discussion s tha t ar e o f valu e i f our contex t ma y be found i n th e tw o volume s o f Vico and Contemporary Thought, ed . G . Tagliacozzo , M. Mooney , an d D . P . Veren e (Atlanti c Highlands , N . J., 1979) . 5. Th e figures i n parentheses , afte r quotation s fro m Vico , refe r t o th e numbe r o f the paragrap h (no t o f th e page) , a syste m introduce d b y Faust o Niccolin i i n hi s 1953 editio n o f th e Scienza nuova. This numeratio n ha s bee n take n ove r i n th e English edition . Se e The New Science of Giambattista Vico, translated b y Thoma s Bergin an d M . Fisc h (Ithaca , N . Y. , 1968) , fro m whic h al l ou r quotation s ar e taken. 6. M . H . Abrams , The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (Oxford, 1971 ; originally publishe d i n 1953) , pp . 28 5 ff . 7. Quote d i n L . Formigari , "Linguisti c Theorie s i n Britis h Seventeent h Centur y Philosophy," Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. P . Wiene r (Ne w York , 1973) , III, p. 75 . 8. Se e Berlin , Vico and Herder, p. 104 ; Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, p. 285 . 9. I n Scienza nuova, 188 , whic h correspond s t o th e passag e just quoted , Vic o speak s of a "golde n Passage " i n Lactance . An d cf . Lactance , The Divine Institutes I , Chapter 1 5 (i n The Works of Lactantius, translated b y W . Fletche r [Edinburgh , 1871], pp . 4 0 ff . 10. Cf . m y Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann (Ne w York , 1985) , pp . 26 3 ff. , for contex t an d furthe r literature .

83

Modern Theories of Art 11. Fo r Montfaucon an d othe r antiquarians , se e below , pp . 4 3 ff . 12. Se e A . Momigliano , Studies in Historiography (Ne w York , 1966) , p . 19 . 13. B y Berlin , i n Vico and Herder, p. 106 . 14. B y Franci s Coleman , The Aesthetic Attitude of the French Enlightenment (Pittsburgh , 1971), p . 15 . Se e als o th e brie f characterizatio n o f Dubo s i n Andr e Fontaine , Les doctrines d'art en France: Peintres, amateurs, critiques de Poussin a Diderot (Geneva , 1970; original edition , Paris , 1909) , pp . 197-203 . 15. A . Lombard , L'Abbe Du Bos: Un initiateur de la pensee moderne (Geneva, 1969 ; originally Paris , 1913) , pp . 31 3 ff., carefull y survey s th e impac t mad e b y th e Reflexions critiques o n contemporar y Europe . 16. Theories of Art, pp . 20 3 ff. , 27 0 ff . 17. Fo r referenc e purposes , I shal l us e th e reprin t Du Bos, Reflexions critiques sur la poesie et sur la peinture (Geneva , 1967) . I n quoting , I shal l first giv e th e pag e number o f th e reprin t an d then , i n parentheses , th e volum e an d pag e numbe r o f the origina l edition . Th e sentenc e jus t quote d ma y b e foun d o n p . 1 3 (I, 22) . 18. Cf . Tertullian' s "Th e Shows , o r De spectaculis," translated int o Englis h b y S . Thelwall, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, I V (Ann Arbor , Mich. , 1976) , pp . 7 9 - 9 1 . 19. Reflexions critiques, p . 1 4 (I, 2 6 ff.). 20. Reflexions critiques, pp. 1 3 ff. (I , 2 5 ff.). I t i s Sectio n II I o f th e first volum e tha t i s devoted t o thi s proble m an d tha t lay s ou t th e fundamental s o f Dubos' s psychol ogy o f th e spectator . 21. Fo r a brief surve y o f L e Brun' s theory , cf . Theories of Art, pp . 33 0 ff . 22. Reflexions critiques, p. 1 5 (I , 3 0 ff.) . Dubo s applie s th e word s quote d t o a traged y by Racine , bu t sinc e h e speak s o f L e Brun' s paintin g i n th e ver y sam e paragraph , the statemen t obviousl y refer s als o t o him . Th e precis e formulatio n i s wort h quoting: "C'est , san s nou s attriste r reellement , qu e l a piec e d e Racin e fai t coule r des larme s d e no s yeux : l'afflictio n n'est , pou r ains i dire , qu e su r l a superfici e d e notre coeur. " 23. Reflexions critiques, p . 1 4 (I, 29) . 24. Fo r Poussin' s theor y of delectation, se e Theories of Art, pp . 32 4 ff . 25. Th e passag e occur s i n Quintilian , lnstitutio oratorio X,ii,ll , an d i s quote d b y Dubos i n Reflexions critiques, p . 1 4 (I, 2 8 f.) . 26. Reflexions critiques, p . 14(1 , 28) . 27. Ibid. , p . 12 0 (I , 45 1 ff.) . Thi s i s Sectio n XLIII , whic h bear s th e titl e "Qu e l a plaisir qu e nou s avon s a u Theatre n'es t poin t produi t pa r illusion. " 28. Reflexions critiques, p . 12 1 (I , 45 4 ff.) . 29. Ibid. , pp . 120f . (1,45 3 ff) . 30. Fo r Lessing , se e below , Chapte r 3 , pp. 14 9 ff . 31. Reflexions critiques, p . 2 9 (I , 87) . 32. Ibid. , p. 113(1,424) . 33. Ibid. , p . 3 0 (I , 9 1 ff.) . 34. Ibid. , p . 3 1 (1,96) . 35. Ibid. , I , Sectio n XIII , pp . 2 8 - 3 5 (I , 84-112) . 36. Ibid. , pp . 11 0 ff. (1,413 ff.).

84

The Early Eighteenth Century 37. Ibid. , p . I l l (I , 414 ff.) . Painting , Dubo s say s here , employ s sign s whic h u ne son t pas de s signe s arbitraire s e t institues , tel s qu e son t le s mot s don t l a Poesi e s e sert." I a m no t awar e o f an y moder n stud y o f Dubos ' concep t o f sign s tha t would tak e int o consideratio n th e significanc e o f th e concep t fo r th e theor y o f painting a t th e time . 38. Reflexions critiques, p . 11 1 (I , 415 ) an d p . 3 3 (I , 105) . 39. Ibid. , p . I l l (1,414) . 40. Ibid. , p . 112(1,421) . 41. Jnstitutio oratoha VI, ii , 29-30 . 42. Rensselae r Lee , Ut pictura poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting (New York , 1967) frequentl y refer s t o Dubo s i n th e discussio n o f thi s well-know n theme . 43. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 26 3 ff. , fo r a brief summary, fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f ar t theory, o f th e allegorica l literatur e i n th e perio d betwee n th e lat e Renaissanc e and Dubos ' generation. 44. Dubo s present s hi s view s o n allegor y i n Sectio n XXI V o f th e first volum e o f hi s great work . Se e Reflexions critiques, pp . 5 5 - 6 3 (I , 190—222) . Th e definitio n o f a n allegorical figure i s foun d a t th e beginnin g o f th e chapter , p . 5 5 (I , 191) . 45. Th e "personnage s allegoriques ,, o f th e first kind , h e say s o n p . 5 5 (I , 192) , ar e those "invente s depui s longtemps , e t qu e tou t l e mond e reconnoi t pou r c e qu'il s sont. li s on t acqui s pou r ains i dire , l e droi t d e bourgeoisie parm i l e genre humain " (italics i n th e original) . 46. Reflexions critiques, 55(1, 193) . 47. Ibid. , p . 5 8 (I , 203) . 48. Ibid. , p . 5 5 (I , 20 3 f.) . 49. Ibid. , p . 60(1 , 210) . 50. Cf . Manuel' s discussio n o f eighteenth-centur y religio n an d atheis m (se e not e 1 ) and, particularly , A . Lombard , L'Abbe Du Bos (se e not e 15) , pp. 5 3 ff . 51. Fo r Pierr e Bayle' s influenc e o n Dubos , se e Lombard , L'Abbe Du Bos, pp . 53—68 . 52. Thoug h Shaftesbur y i s frequentl y refere d t o i n historie s o f aesthetics , hi s contri bution t o th e though t o n ar t doe s no t see m t o hav e receive d sufficien t study . This i s particularl y tru e o f hi s view s o n paintin g an d sculpture . Stimulatin g ar e Ernst Cassirer' s view s i n hi s Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Princeton , 1951) . Fo r Shaftesbury's opinion s o n th e artis t and hi s creative imagination , cf. James Engell , The Creative Imagination (Cambridge, Mass. , 1981) . Gret e Sternberg , Shaftesburys Aesthetik (Breslau, 1915) , attempt s a characterizatio n o f th e individua l art s ac cording t o Shaftesbury . 53. Fo r Shaftesbury' s theor y o f beauty , se e mainl y hi s Advice to an Author, passim , esp. Par t 2 , sectio n 2 , an d Par t 3 , sectio n 3 . Th e editio n use d her e i s Characterise ticks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times b y Anthony , Ear l o f Shaftesbur y (1732) , Vol . 1, pp. 23 9 ff., 353 . Fo r th e danger s inheren t i n beauty , se e Advice, Part 1 , sectio n 2, pp . 18 3 ff . 54. Le o Spitzer , Classical and Christian Ideas of World Harmony: Prolegomena of an Interpretation of the Word "Stimmung" (Baltimore , 1963) . 55. Se e especiall y A Letter Concerning Design, i n Characteristicks, III , pp . 39 3 ff. Not e

§5

Modern Theories of Art what Shaftesbur y say s o n th e artist' s "liberty/ * pp . 40 2 ff . Reference s t o th e artist's freedo m ar e foun d i n mos t o f Shaftesbury' s writings . 56. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 29 1 ff. , wit h reference s t o furthe r literature . 57. Se e Soliloquy : Or , Advice to An Author, Par t 1 , sectio n 3 (Characteristicks, I , pp . 207 ff.). Fo r Shaftesbury' s admiratio n o f Prometheus , se e als o The Moralists: A Rhapsody, Par t 1 , section 2 (Characteristicks, II , pp. 19 2 ff., 20 1 ff). T o th e questio n of wh y mankin d ha s s o man y follie s an d s o muc h perverseness , Shaftesbur y replies (ironically) : "Prometheu s wa s th e Cause . Th e plastic k Artist , wit h hi s unlucky Hand , solv' d all " (p. 201) . 58. Se e Miscellaneous Reflections, Miscellany IV , Chapte r 1 (Characteristicks, III , pp . 189 ff, esp . pp . 19 2 ff). Se e als o Advice to an Author, Par t 1 , sectio n 3 , an d Par t 3, sectio n 1 (Characteristicks, I , pp. 17 0 ff, 28 2 ff). 59. Se e Shaftesbury' s A Letter Concerning Enthusiasm (Characteristicks, I , pp . 3-55) . 60. Fo r th e proble m i n general , se e Samue l H . Monk , The Sublime: A Study of Critical Theories in XVUl-Century England (An n Arbor , Mich. , 1960 ; originally publishe d i n 1935). An d se e particularl y pp . 164-20 2 fo r "Th e Sublim e i n Painting. " 61. Se e Marjori e Nicolson , Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite (Ne w York , 1959) . 62. Se e als o he r entrie s "Literar y Attitude s Toward s Mountains " an d "Th e Sublim e in Externa l Nature " in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed . P . Wiener , (Ne w York , 1973), III , pp. 253-260 , an d IV , pp . 333-337 . 63. Se e The Moralists, Par t 3 , sectio n 2 (Characteristicks, II , p. 396) . 64. Fo r th e bes t surve y o f th e problem s raise d b y th e historica l phenomeno n o f th e antiquarians, thoug h see n mainl y fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f general , historiogra phy, se e Momigliano' s stud y "Ancien t Histor y an d th e Antiquarian " i n A . Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (New York , 1966) , pp . 1-3 9 (originall y published i n th e Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 1 3 [1950] : 2 8 5 315). 65. Se e Illustrissimi E. Spanheimii . . . Dissertationes de praestanta et usu Numismatum antiquorum. Editio nova . . . (Amsterdam, 1717) . 66. Jacque s Spon , Reponse a la critique publiee par M. Guillet (Lyon, 1679) . 67. J . Addison , "Dialogue s upo n th e usefulnes s o f ancien t models, " i n hi s Miscellaneous Works, II I (Oxford, 1830) , pp . 59-199 . 68. Th e autho r wa s Fr . Bianchini . Th e wor k appeare d i n 1697 . 69. Fo r a brie f bu t authoritativ e revie w o f Baldinucci' s wor k an d significance , se e J. von Schlosser , Die Kunstliteratur (Vienna , 1924) , pp . 41 8 ff 70. Se e Thoma s Puttfarken , Roger de Piles' Theory of Art (Ne w Have n an d London , 1985). 71. Idea of the Perfect Painter, in Roge r d e Piles , The Art of Painting and the Lives of the Painters (London , 1706) , pp . 6 7 ff 72. The Art of Painting, pp . 68 . 73. Thoug h dealin g wit h literatur e only , Andr e Jolles , Einfache Formen (Hall e a . S. , 1930) ca n b e productiv e fo r th e theor y o f ar t a s well . 74. Se e "Giovann i Morell i an d th e Origin s o f Scientifi c Connoisseurship " i n Richar d Wollheim, On Art and the Mind (Cambridge, Mass. , 1974) , pp . 177-201 . 86

The Early Eighteenth Century 75. The Art of Painting, p. 70 . 76. Richardson , Per e e t Fils , Traite de la peinture et de la sculpture (Amsterdam , 1728 ; reprinted Geneva , 1972) , 1 , p. 7 (p . 1 5 o f reprint) . 77. Christ' s monograp h wa s publishe d i n Acta erudita et curiosa (Nuremberg , 1726) . And cf . Wilhel m Waetzoldt , Deutsche Kunsthistoriker, I , Von Sandrart bis Kumohr (Leipzig, 1921) , pp . 4 5 ff . 78. A . J . Dezaillie r d'Argensville , Abrege des vies des peintres (n.p., 1745) . Alread y i n 1768 a Germa n translatio n appeare d i n print . An d se e Andr e Fontaine , Les doctrines d'art en France (Paris , 1909 ; reprinted Geneva , 1970) , pp . 191-196 . 79. Fo r Hippolyt e Taine , se e below , pp . 32 0 ff . 80. Nicola s Pevsner , Academies of Art: Past and Present (Cambridge , 1940) , pp . 14 0 ff . 81. Fo r a modern assessmen t o f Gerard' s book , cf . Geor g Kaufimann, "Studie n zu m grossen Malerbuc h de s Gerar d d e Lairesse, " Jahrbuch fur Aesthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft I I (1953): 153-196 . 82. I quote fro m th e Frenc h edition : Gerar d d e Lairesse , Le grand livre des peintres ou Yart de la peinture considere dans toutes ses parties, et demonstre par principes . . . (Paris , 1787; reprinte d Geneva , 1972) . I t wil l hereafte r b e referre d t o a s Grand livre. Roman numeral s refe r t o th e book , Arabi c t o th e chapte r o f th e origina l edition ; numbers i n parenthese s refe r t o th e volum e an d pag e o f th e reprint . 83. Leon Battista Alberti on Painting, translate d b y Joh n Spence r (Ne w Have n an d London, 1966) , p . 43 . 84. Grand livre I, 1 (1,51). 85. Ibid. , I , 1 (I, 55) . 86. Ibid. , VII , 1 (II, 133) . 87. Ibid. , I , 1 (I, 53) . 88. Nicolas Poussin: Lettres et propos sur Fart, ed. A . Blun t (Paris , 1964) , pp . 123-125 . And se e Theories of Art, pp . 32 9 ff., wit h additiona l literature . 89. Henr i Testelin , Sentiments les plus habiles des peintres sur la pratique de la peinture et sculpture mis en table de preceptes (Paris , 1780) . Se e Theories of Art, pp . 33 8 ff . 90. Alberti on Painting, p . 72 . 91. Se e Jea n Seznec , "Didero t an d Historica l Painting, " i n E . R . Wasserma n (ed.) , Aspects of the Eighteenth Century (Baltimore, 1965) , pp . 129-142 , especiall y pp . 129ff. 92. Fo r brie f summarie s o f academi c though t o n th e hierarch y o f pictoria l genres , see Fontaine , Les doctrines d'art en France, pp . 5 6 ff., an d Kar l Borinski , Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, II (Leipzig , 1921) , pp . 98 , 101 . An d se e als o Theories of Art, pp . 34 2 ff . 93. Grand livre VI, 1 (II, 1) : "La variet e es t Pam e d u plaisi r e t l a sourc e de s toute s le s sensations agreables. " 94. Th e thre e scene s ar e describe d i n Grand livre VI , 1 2 (II , 59-83) . Fo r th e description o f th e site , se e pp . 5 9 ff . 95. Ibid. , VI , 12(11 , 68 ff.) . 96. Ibid. , VI , 1 2 (II , 7 7 ff.). Fo r th e descriptio n o f th e natura l scenery , se e particu larly p . 80 . 97. Ibid. , XI , 1 (II, 473 ff.) . Th e sentenc e quote d i s on p . 474 .

87

Modern Theories of Art 98. Se e Hegel' s Vorlesungen iiber die Aesthetik, edite d b y Hoth o (se e Hegel's Werke, Vol . X, Par t II I [Berlin , 1831]) , pp . 12 0 ff . 99. Grand livre IX, 1 (II, 31 5 ff.) 100. Ibid. , VIII , 6 (II , 209-210) . 101. Kauffmann , "Studie n zu m grosse n Malerbuch " (se e above , not e 81) , pp . 16 8 ff . 102. Grand livre XI, 1 (II, 47 3 ff.) . Fo r th e definitio n quoted , se e p . 474 . 103. Meye r Schapiro , Modern Art: 19th & 20th Centuries: Selected Papers (New York , 1978), pp . 18ff . Th e articl e fro m whic h th e quotatio n i s take n i s Schapiro' s well-known essa y "Th e Apple s o f Cezanne : A n Essa y o n th e Meanin g o f Still life." 104. Grand livre XI, 1 (11,475). 105. Ibid. , XI , 3 (II, 48 4 ff.) . 106. Ibid. , XI , 3 (II, 476) . 107. Ibid. , XI , 3 (II, 47 7 ff). 108. Gerar d d e Lairess e devote s a specia l "book " t o flower paintin g (Grand livre XII [II, 587-508]) , somethin g tha t wa s no t commo n i n thi s typ e o f literature . Throughout th e "book, " h e refer s t o th e symboli c meanin g o f flowers an d t o th e feasibility o f conveyin g a messag e b y th e prope r arrangemen t o f flowers. 109. Grand livre XI, 3 (II, 480) . 110. Fo r Richardson' s influenc e o n th e cultur e an d ar t theor y o f hi s time , se e G . W . Snelgrove, The Work and Theories of Jonathan Richardson (London , 1936) . 111. Roge r d e Piles , The Art of Painting, p. 19 . 112. I a m usin g th e Frenc h editio n (se e above , not e 76) . Fo r th e discussio n o f th e sublime, se e I , pp . 182-21 6 (pp . 59-6 7 o f reprint) . 113. Longinus on the Sublime, translate d b y H . L . Havel l (London , 1953) , Chapte r XXXVI. 114. Roge r d e Piles , The Art of Painting, p. 19 . 115. Samue l Monk , The Sublime, especially Chapte r 1 , pp. 1 0 ff . 116. Se e W . J . Hippie , The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory (Carbondale, 111. , 1957). 117. Se e The Works of the Right Honourable Joseph Addison, (London, 1811) , IV , pp . 336 ff, 34 0 ff. (Spectator, # 41 1 [June , 21 ] an d # 41 2 [Jun e 23] ) 1712 . An d d. Engell, The Creative Imagination, pp . 3 6 ff . 118. Fo r th e wide r significanc e o f th e tw o garde n types , se e Erwi n Panofsky , "O n th e Ideological Antecedent s o f th e Rolls-Royc e Radiator, " Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107(1963): 273-288 . 119. Addison , Works, IV, p . 336 . 120. Grand livre I, 1 (reprint I , 55) . 121. Richardson , Per e e t Fils , Traite de la peinture et de la sculpture (Amsterdam, 1728 ; reprinted Geneva , 1972) , I , pp . 13 1 ff. (reprint , p . 46) . 122. Richardson , Traite de la peinture, I , pp . 20 4 f. (reprint , p . 64) . 123. Marjori e Nicolson , Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory (se e above , not e 61) .

88

2

Beginnings o f th e Ne w Ag e

What scholar s cal l "periodization, " tha t is , th e divisio n o f th e broad , continuous strea m o f histor y int o "distinguishabl e portions, " i s th e historian's tas k an d burden . Student s o f al l period s an d age s wil l inves t great intellectua l effor t an d critica l acume n i n markin g th e "limits " o f the period s the y study , i n establishin g whe n an d wher e the y begi n an d end. I t i s particularl y th e "beginnings " tha t cas t a magi c spell , an d th e more s o whe n th e searc h i s fo r th e emergenc e o f ou r ow n tim e an d world. A s we hav e alread y noted , i n th e limite d domai n o f reflectio n o n painting an d sculpture , th e ne w ag e bega n i n th e middl e o f th e eigh teenth century . I n th e openin g page s o f thi s boo k I have indicate d that , to a fairl y larg e extent , w e ca n pinpoin t th e tim e an d condition s i n which moder n ar t theor y wa s born . Withi n a singl e decade , roughl y between 175 6 an d 1767 , idea s emerge d an d form s o f reflectio n an d study wer e shape d tha t decisivel y determine d th e though t o n th e visua l arts fo r th e nex t tw o centuries . Turnin g t o thi s decade , w e naturall y have man y questions . Wher e di d th e impulse s fo r th e ne w though t come from , an d wha t wer e th e conditions—social , cultural , institu tional—that mad e i t possibl e fo r th e ne w idea s t o develop ? Di d th e various effort s undertake n durin g thi s shor t spa n hav e a commo n theme, o r wa s i t onl y thei r long-lastin g effect , a s felt ove r th e centuries , that bring s the m togethe r i n ou r mind ? 89

Modern Theories of Art

I. MENG S Abstract theor y an d contemplatio n surel y playe d a part i n preparin g th e ground fo r a new reflectio n o n art . Th e "founder " o f modern aesthetics , the firs t autho r t o spea k o f aesthetica a s a field of experience an d o f stud y in it s ow n right , Alexande r Gottlie b Baumgarten , wa s a professo r a t a scholastic university—thi s a t a time , on e shoul d add , whe n th e univer sity wa s no t a t th e pea k o f it s fame . Drawin g upo n th e establishe d tradition o f systematic , thoug h rathe r dry , reasoning , i t i s hi s histori c achievement t o hav e prepare d th e groun d fo r a n explici t philosophica l discussion o f th e arts . Th e grea t impulse s o f creativ e renewa l i n th e theory o f paintin g an d sculpture , however , cam e fro m differen t quar ters, amon g the m fro m th e worksho p o f th e practicin g artis t an d fro m the studie s an d collection s o f th e learne d antiquaria n an d literar y interpreter o f ancien t art . Th e interactio n betwee n thes e tw o types , th e painter an d th e antiquarian , i s magnificently represente d b y th e close , if complex, relationshi p betwee n A . R . Meng s an d H . J. Winckelmann. x The wor k o f th e tw o me n was , a t leas t i n som e respects , s o closel y intertwined tha t an y attemp t t o decid e wh o cam e first an d wh o second , the painte r o r th e antiquarian , i s boun d t o fail . Le t u s fo r a momen t recall som e o f th e dates . I n 17^0 , Baumgarten publishe d th e first volum e of Aesthetica, i n 17^ 8 th e second . Tw o year s befor e th e secon d volum e could hav e reache d th e bookshop s an d it s fe w bu t avi d readers , Winck elmann publishe d hi s first treatise , th e sli m volum e tha t wa s t o exer t such a wid e influence , th e Thoughts on the Imitation of the Greek Works of Painting and Sculpture (17^^). A t abou t th e sam e time , Anto n Raphae l Mengs (1728—1779) , a Germa n painte r wh o live d i n Rome , bega n writing dow n hi s reflection s o n th e classica l statue s an d Renaissanc e paintings tha t mad e th e Eterna l Cit y a cente r o f art . I n 176 2 thes e reflections wer e publishe d a s Gedanken uber die Schonheit und den Geschmack in der Mahlerey 2 Th e boo k wa s dedicate d t o Winckelmann , an d Kar l Justi, th e grea t nineteenth-centur y Winckelman n scholar , declare d tha t it woul d b e difficul t t o separat e th e "insight s o f Mr. Mengs " fro m thos e of Winckelmann . Tw o year s later , i n 1764 , th e History of Ancient Art appeared i n print . Winckelmann ^ fam e has—rightly , on e shoul d sa y 90

Beginnings of the New Age —overshadowed tha t o f man y o f hi s contemporaries , includin g Mengs . It ma y b e useful , however , t o mak e som e acquaintanc e wit h Meng' s theory o f ar t befor e w e approac h th e imposin g wor k o f Winckelmann . In hi s notes , Meng s mad e severa l significan t contribution s t o though t on ar t a s i t wa s know n i n hi s time . H e wa s deepl y concerne d wit h ar t as a bod y o f thought , an d fascinate d b y th e "painters-philosophers " (Malerdenker) o f ancient Greece. 3 Ar t shoul d b e understoo d a s a compre hensive structure , fre e fro m anecdota l a s well a s from merel y individua l elements. Havin g bee n aske d t o writ e a vita of th e painte r Tempesta , Mengs replied , o n Septembe r i , 17^6 : "We hav e enoug h vite of painters . To m y min d i t woul d b e bette r t o replac e the m b y a history o f art." 4 But thoug h Mengs , presiden t o f th e Academ y o f Ar t i n Rome , an d a classicist painte r famou s throughou t Europ e fo r hi s murals, moves easil y in th e real m o f ar t theory , tha t is , i n th e domai n situate d betwee n purely conceptual , abstrac t notion s o f ar t an d th e actua l executio n o f a painting o n a canva s o r a wall , hi s hear t doe s no t li e wit h merel y philosophical deliberation . Tha t h e coul d no t avoi d suc h deliberation s altogether probabl y resulte d les s fro m hi s natura l inclination s tha n fro m the cultur e withi n whic h h e wa s raise d an d wa s working . Eighteenth century educatio n i n th e art s involve d a goo d dea l o f Platoni c talk . Though w e shoul d no t tak e suc h tal k to o literally , th e impac t o f philosophical idea s o n th e artists ' worl d canno t b e disregarded . Mengs' s attempts t o cas t th e abundanc e o f artisti c forms , th e variet y o f concret e styles int o a theoretica l pattern , int o a comprehensive syste m o f art , ar e typical o f th e interpenetratio n o f concret e dat a an d conceptua l system s prevailing i n th e ar t an d cultur e o f th e time . In readin g Mengs' s reflection s on e observe s tha t h e ha s tw o system s rather tha n one . H e make s extensiv e us e o f th e concept s h e inherite d from Renaissanc e ar t theory , base d o n a system tha t i n th e fifteenth an d sixteenth centurie s wa s usually know n a s that o f the "part s o f painting. " Mengs wa s followin g Renaissanc e traditio n closel y whe n h e divide d painting int o five parts : drawing , ligh t an d shadow , color , invention , and composition. 5 Wha t h e ha s t o sa y unde r thes e heading s contain s little tha t i s new o r goe s beyon d th e limit s o f th e Renaissanc e heritage . His othe r syste m show s greate r originality , an d i t bear s th e imprin t of Mengs' s ow n time . Her e ou r autho r attempt s t o distil l a fe w distinc t 91

Modern Theories of Art styles fro m th e wealt h o f artisti c impression s presentin g themselve s i n Italy an d t o arrang e the m i n som e clea r order . H e conceive s thes e style s as primeva l pattern s o r aborigina l manner s o f depiction . Delineatin g them become s a mapping o f th e basi c possibilitie s o f shapin g art . Le t u s remember tha t Meng s doe s no t arrang e thes e style s i n chronologica l order, no r doe s h e tr y t o sho w ho w on e styl e ma y lea d t o another . Hegel's philosophica l goal , t o sho w tha t historica l transformation s ar e the manifestation s o f a conceptua l structure , stil l la y i n th e distan t future. Th e style s tha t Meng s discusse s ar e al l timeles s possibilitie s o f shaping th e work , an d th e world , o f art ; the y ar e alway s present , an d therefore the y coexist . I n thi s tren d o f thought , Meng s als o follow s a late sixteenth-centur y model . Gia n Paol o Lomazzo' s allegorica l Templ e of Paintin g rest s o n seve n columns . Eac h column , w e remember , repre sents a painter , a style , a mineral , an d s o on . Sinc e th e templ e rest s o n all seve n columns , the y ar e obviousl y imagine d a s coexisting . Meng s does no t emplo y suc h image s a s th e allegorica l temple , bu t h e envisage s the differen t style s a s simultaneou s patterns . What , then , ar e thes e primeval styles ? The "hig h style " (der hohe Stil), possibl y t o b e translate d a s th e "sublime," come s first i n Mengs' s chart . I t i s i n thi s styl e tha t elevated , or sublime , subject s ar e embodie d an d mad e availabl e t o ou r visua l experience an d intelligibl e t o ou r minds . Mengs' s reflection s o n th e "high style " probabl y belon g t o th e earlies t discussion s o f th e sublim e by a painte r an d i n th e contex t o f painting . H e himsel f wa s a neoclassi cal painter , an d s o h e naturall y looke d fo r ancien t models . Yet , studyin g Greek an d Roma n paintings , h e i s struc k an d confuse d b y wha t h e finds. W e jus t don' t hav e ancien t model s fo r th e "hig h style " i n painting, h e discovers . Thi s i s so , h e explains , becaus e wha t w e hav e o f Greek paintin g i s fragmentary , and , i n consequence , ou r menta l imag e of tha t grea t ar t i s no t sufficientl y clear . Wit h sculptur e th e situatio n i s different. Her e Gree k model s hav e com e dow n t o us , an d amon g the m the Apollo Belvedere, particularl y revealing . Bu t Meng s i s a painter , an d painting remain s a t th e cente r o f hi s attention . H e therefor e goe s o n t o show tha t wha t Gree k paintin g doe s no t giv e us , th e Renaissanc e provides i n abundance : example s an d model s o f th e "hig h style. " Thus , in "moder n art, " Raphae l ha s raise d th e "hig h style " t o a leve l tha t 92

Beginnings of the New Age Mengs call s "th e majestic. " T o th e sam e categor y als o belong s Michel angelo's work , displayin g th e qualit y o f terribihta. Now, pickin g ou t these particula r master s i s no t new , no r i s Mengs' s characterizatio n o f their style s original . Wha t is new, however , i s that Raphae l an d Michel angelo, instea d o f bein g juxtaposed a s embodyin g "grace " versu s terribihta, ar e no w jumped togethe r i n one category, th e on e Meng s call s "hig h style." On e canno t hel p feelin g tha t th e appearanc e o f th e sublim e o n the intellectua l horizo n o f aesthetic s involve d a fundamenta l revisio n o f the historica l pictur e tha t ha d bee n accepte d fo r centuries . The "beautifu l style " (der schdne Stil) is another o f the primeva l styles . In expoundin g it , Meng s relies , t o a greate r exten t tha n i n mos t o f hi s other discussions , o n traditiona l Neoplatoni c idea s an d literar y imagery . Absolute perfectio n i s unattainabl e b y huma n beings , i t rest s wit h Go d alone; but Go d ha s impresse d upo n u s th e abilit y t o perceive—and , b y implication, t o produce— a visibl e manifestatio n o f tha t perfection . That manifestatio n i s beauty . A wor k o f ar t shape d i n th e "beautifu l style," on e i s tempte d t o understand , bot h adumbrate s th e ineffabl e perfection o f Go d an d suggest s th e eterna l huma n failur e t o achiev e it . But ho w ca n on e defin e beauty ? I t i s harde r t o describ e beaut y tha n al l the othe r characteristic s tha t for m th e basi s o f variou s styles ; actuall y one ca n onl y paraphras e it . I t i s interestin g that , i n tryin g t o describ e the "beautifu l style, " Meng s stresse s highl y subjectiv e qualities . Work s of ar t create d i n tha t style , h e says , ar e delicate , gentl e o r mild , fre e from anythin g superfluous . Th e impressio n th e reade r obtain s i s tha t o f a noble , gentle, an d soothin g harmon y becomin g a n idea l o f beauty . What Meng s mor e specificall y ha d i n min d i n speakin g o f th e "beautiful style " w e ma y gues s b y considerin g th e example s h e men tions. Annibal e Carracc i attain s beaut y i n hi s depictio n o f mal e bodies , Francesco Alban i i n hi s renderin g o f femal e bodies , Guid o Ren i i n hi s representation o f femal e heads . A s fa r a s concrete , historica l develop ments ar e concerned , Mengs' s example s amoun t t o a glorification o f th e academic tren d i n earl y Baroqu e Rome . I n tryin g t o presen t Mengs' s proclamations i n a conceptua l form , on e canno t hel p emphasizin g th e expressive, o r suggestive , characte r o f th e beautifu l style . Beaut y i s described no t i n term s o f measurabl e proportion s bu t i n term s o f pure , noble, an d gentl e qualities . On e come s t o th e conclusio n (whic h Meng s 93

Modern Theories of Art himself ma y wel l hav e avoided ) tha t wha t wil l ultimatel y determin e beauty i s the spectator' s ow n experience . There i s still anothe r kin d o f beauty , namel y gracefulness . I n Mengs' s chart o f style s thi s kin d o f beaut y i s represente d b y wha t h e call s th e "charming [o r graceful ] style " (der reizvolle Stil). Now , th e distinctio n between beaut y an d char m o r grace , betwee n bellezza and grazia, i s o f course a well-know n one , ofte n encountere d i n th e histor y o f ar t theory. Sinc e Alberti , an d particularl y i n th e sixteent h century , i t ha d become a permanent featur e i n doctrine s o f painting. There is , however , an importan t differenc e betwee n Alberti , o r eve n sixteenth-centur y authors, an d Mengs . Fo r Albert i an d hi s followers , Beaut y itsel f i s conceived a s a n objectiv e syste m o f traceable , measurabl e shape s an d proportions, an d fro m thi s kin d o f beaut y grazia i s se t of f a s a specia l kind o f beauty , charmin g ou r eye s thoug h i t canno t b e measure d an d traced. Doe s thi s distinctio n stil l hol d tru e fo r Mengs , afte r h e ha s i n fact transforme d Beaut y itsel f int o a quasi-subjective category ? Mengs describe s th e "charmin g style " b y it s expressiv e effects . Pic tures painte d i n thi s styl e evok e pleasur e an d liking , th e manne r i s ligh t and lovely , th e movement s depicte d ar e humbl e rathe r tha n proud . But , once again , on e learn s mor e abou t th e styl e fro m th e example s illustrat ing it . Amon g work s o f ancien t art , th e Venus de Medici show s bes t wha t "graceful beauty " is ; i n "moder n art, " i t i s mainl y Correggio' s wor k that embodie s thi s typ e o f beauty . Her e w e shoul d paus e fo r a moment , and loo k a t Mengs' s attitud e t o Correggio . Excep t fo r Raphael , Meng s revered Correggi o abov e al l others ; h e i s mor e strongl y attracte d b y Correggio tha n b y an y othe r artist . Correggi o i s "th e noon " o f art , an d ever sinc e hi s deat h ar t ha s declined . Wha t make s Correggi o s o unique ? It i s a littl e difficul t t o get a satisfactory answe r fro m a literal readin g o f the text . Correggio , Meng s says , combine s grac e wit h greatness , dainti ness (o r elegance ) wit h truth . Wha t probabl y lie s behin d thes e rathe r general formulation s i s Mengs' s fascinatio n wit h Correggio' s abilit y t o convey th e fullnes s an d directnes s o f live experience. I s this a somewha t dry academician' s longin g t o attai n th e sensualit y o f Correggio ? I n an y case, makin g Correggi o th e centra l exponen t o f th e "charmin g style " suggests tha t th e characteristi c feature s o f thi s manner , i n additio n t o 94

Beginnings of the New Age lightness an d humility , ar e stron g sensor y qualitie s an d a direct , power ful appea l t o th e beholder . Subjectiv e elements , howeve r formulated , become increasingl y significant . A fourt h mod e o f paintin g i s "th e significant o r expressiv e style. " A literal interpretatio n o f tha t labe l doe s no t lea d u s anywhere . I n th e almost universa l formulatio n i n whic h i t i s presented—"significan t o r expressive"—this descriptio n fits a confusin g variet y o f style s an d movements i n th e visua l arts , an d on e ca n appl y i t t o almos t ever y period i n th e histor y o f art . T o kno w wha t Meng s actuall y ha d i n min d we tur n t o th e master s ou r autho r evoke s t o illustrat e hi s meaning . Th e central evidenc e fo r th e "significan t o r expressiv e style " i s foun d i n Raphael's work . A t first, thi s ma y see m a littl e surprising . W e hav e jus t seen tha t Raphael' s oeuvr e illustrate s th e "high " a s wel l a s th e "beauti ful style. " Obviousl y Meng s ha s differen t facet s o f Raphael' s ar t i n mind. Bu t i t seem s tha t th e "significan t o r expressive " i s th e majo r o r typical featur e i n tha t venerate d master' s work . Thi s indicate s a certai n shift o f emphasi s i n th e appreciatio n an d readin g o f Raphael . Fo r centuries, hi s ar t ha d bee n hel d up , described , an d praise d a s th e classi c example o f grac e i n painting . Ther e ca n b e n o doub t tha t Meng s wa s intimately familia r wit h thi s characterizatio n an d wit h th e time-honore d prestige i t enjoyed . Wh y the n di d h e diverg e fro m thi s model ? Th e answer i s tha t th e meanin g o f th e notion s ha d changed . "Grace, " o r "charm," no w carr y th e stron g sensua l overtone s endowe d b y th e choice o f Correggi o a s a n embodimen t o f thi s quality . Compare d wit h Correggio, Raphael' s ar t i s solem n an d eve n detached . I t i s th e ar t o f noble, significan t expression . Bu t Meng s i s anxious t o stres s tha t Raphael' s distance fro m immediat e sensualit y ha s nothin g t o d o wit h th e col d an d empty intricacie s o f Mannerism . Raphael , h e says , achieved th e expres sion o f hear t an d sou l (Gemiit) without succumbin g t o affection . All thi s tell s us , thoug h b y inferenc e rathe r tha n directly , tha t th e "significant o r expressiv e style " largely overlap s wit h th e heroi c manne r that th e Renaissanc e recommende d fo r histor y painting . T o b e sure , a Renaissance istoria wa s mean t t o includ e als o wha t Meng s attribute s t o the "hig h style. " Now , i n mid-eighteent h century , afte r th e sublim e i n art ha s com e t o b e considere d a s a specia l category , "significan t o r 95

Modern Theories of Art expressive" subjec t matte r an d mod e o f painting ar e restricte d t o heroi c and dramati c art , bu t o f a kin d tha t doe s no t attemp t t o sugges t wha t cannot b e represented . The "natura l style " i s stil l anothe r o f th e primeva l styles . I t i s characteristic o f th e wor k o f artist s wh o rende r natur e an d realit y "a s they are, " withou t tryin g t o improv e upo n wha t w e perceiv e i n ou r regular experience . Th e obviou s origi n o f thi s characterizatio n i s Aristotle's Poetics. A s w e remember , Aristotl e outline s a hierarchy o f th e men whos e action s ar e imitate d i n plays : "i t follow s tha t w e mus t represent me n eithe r a s bette r tha n i n rea l life , o r a s worse , o r a s the y are." An d th e philosophe r himsel f compare s thi s t o painting . "I t i s th e same i n painting . Polygnotu s depicte d me n a s noble r tha n the y are , Pauson a s les s noble , Dionysu s dre w the m t o tru e life." 6 B y Mengs' s time, thi s well-know n Aristotelia n distinction , repeate d o n innumerabl e occasions sinc e th e Renaissance , ha d becom e a trite , worn-ou t com monplace. Fro m th e literar y formulatio n i t woul d b e ver y difficul t t o gather wha t Meng s ha d i n mind . Again , i t i s onl y th e example s tha t shed mor e specifi c ligh t o n th e category . Thes e ar e take n fro m tw o historical schools , Dutc h seventeenth-centur y painting , particularl y Gerar d Dou, Rembrandt , an d Teniers , and , eve n mor e so , Spanis h painting , especially Velasquez . In th e assessmen t o f Dutc h paintin g a certain difference—perhap s a difference i n ton e rathe r tha n substance—betwee n Meng s an d Winck elmann canno t b e overlooked . Winckelman n i s les s restraine d i n hi s criticism an d outrigh t rejectio n o f Dutc h painting . I n hi s Thoughts on the Imitation h e speak s criticall y o f "Dutc h form s an d figures." I n th e subsequent Sendschreiben, h e says , somewha t ironically , tha t th e "so called Dutc h form s an d figures" ma y not , afte r all , be altogethe r devoi d of value . A s Bernin i used , an d wa s useful , t o caricature , s o on e ma y derive som e advantag e fro m wha t i s see n i n Dutc h painting. 7 A s compared t o Winckelmann , Meng s i s more restraine d i n hi s tone .

96

Beginnings of the New Age

II. WINCKELMAN N The collecte d work s o f Johan n Joachi m Winckelmann , writte n withi n the spa n o f barel y on e decade , betwee n ij^g an d 1767 , constitut e a nodal poin t i n th e evolutio n o f Wester n idea s o n art . The y mark , an d are par t of , th e turnin g poin t betwee n th e ag e tha t stil l followe d th e humanistic traditio n a s a matte r o f course , an d th e moder n ag e domi nated b y the cravin g fo r originalit y an d revolution . I n the tw o centurie s that hav e elapse d sinc e hi s work bega n it s triumpha l marc h int o European though t an d letters , attitude s t o Winckelman n hav e varie d a great deal : som e hav e praise d hi m a s th e criti c wh o establishe d th e study o f ar t a s a n autonomou s province , other s hav e brande d him , t o borrow Mis s Butler' s phras e (t o whic h w e shal l shortl y revert) , a s th e initiator o f th e "tyrann y o f Greec e over Germany. " Al l student s wil l agree, however , tha t i n hi s wor k th e age s met , and , t o n o mea n degre e as a result o f his work , tha t the y parted . Sinc e Alberti an d Vasari, it can be claimed withou t hesitation , n o othe r teacher , scholar , an d writer has had a simila r impac t o n reflectio n o n th e visua l arts . Winckelmann' s mark i s clearl y t o b e trace d i n a variet y o f domains . H e i s usuall y reckoned amon g th e author s wh o shape d moder n literar y German ; h e was th e pionee r an d founde r o f moder n archaeology ; h e had , mainl y through Herder , a n endurin g influenc e o n th e writin g o f history ; i n hi s view of a culture developin g "organically, " through an irreversible serie s of periods , h e adumbrated , an d pave d th e wa y for , nineteenth-centur y historicism; i n initiatin g th e "Gree k revival, " h e wa s a majo r forc e i n determining moder n taste ; finally, h e wa s th e first autho r t o writ e a book tha t i n its title combine s th e term s "history " and "art," the History of Ancient Art (1764) . Thes e ar e onl y som e o f th e domain s tha t ca n rightfully clai m Winckelman n a s thei r own . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o discuss th e man y differen t aspect s o f Winckelmann' s personalit y an d work. I shal l onl y commen t o n hi s significanc e t o th e histor y o f ar t theory. Winckelmann's lif e ha s frequently bee n told , an d ther e i s n o nee d t o repeat th e story. Bor n in 171 7 int o abject poverty i n a forlorn, backwar d 97

Modern Theories oj Art Prussian village , h e foun d hi s wa y t o th e summi t o f th e refine d Euro pean cultur e o f hi s time , an d o f al l ages . I n ijgg h e publishe d hi s first composition, Thoughts on the Imitation of the Greek Works of Painting and Sculpture, and, eigh t year s later , th e History of Ancient Art. A fe w year s afterwards, i n 1768 , he wa s murdere d i n a senseless incident. 8 Let u s no w tur n t o ou r prope r subject , an d ask : ma y w e legitimatel y treat Winckelman n i n a discussio n o f ar t theory ? Wer e w e t o tel l th e story o f archaeology , o f antiquaria n studies , o r o f th e histor y o f art , th e question woul d no t arise . Bu t w e ar e her e dealin g wit h th e particula r field of ar t theory . Wha t i s Winckelmann's significanc e i n th e histor y o f that discipline ? I. WINCKELMAN N AN D TH E AR T O F HI S TIM E

Winckelmann di d no t star t wit h th e stud y o f art , h e ende d wit h it . Hi s beginnings, i n actua l lif e a s wel l a s i n th e structur e o f hi s intellectua l world, wer e i n th e are a o f th e word . Originall y h e wa s concerne d wit h the Gree k tex t (primaril y o f Homer) , it s exegesi s an d literar y study . The place s wher e h e bega n hi s intellectua l career—villages , smal l towns, an d castles—di d no t hav e an y ar t wort h speakin g of ; i t wa s only whe n h e ha d alread y define d hi s wa y a s a schola r an d interprete r of th e ancien t worl d tha t h e experienced , i n Dresden , reall y grea t art , and eve n the n i t wa s almos t exclusivel y "modern " art , mainl y Raphael . It wa s onl y whe n h e cam e t o Rom e tha t h e encountered , an d acquire d a familiarit y with , ancien t art . Seen fro m th e vantag e poin t o f today , i t ma y sometime s see m tha t the influenc e o f Winckelmann' s wor k radicall y differ s fro m wha t h e himself intended . I t i s primaril y th e academi c worl d wher e hi s impac t is most strongl y fel t an d wher e hi s legac y i s most keenl y studied . (Her e fate ha s playe d a n ironi c tric k wort h remembering : Winckelman n wa s inclined t o ridicul e professor s an d th e academi c establishment. ) W e consider hi m th e fathe r o f archaeolog y an d ar t history , a crucia l figure in th e histor y o f numismatics , an d s o on . Hi s ow n motivation s an d intentions, however , a t leas t i n th e initia l stag e o f hi s brie f career , la y somewhere else . Hi s ai m wa s t o brin g abou t a radica l transformatio n i n the ar t o f hi s time , a turnabou t i n th e directio n o f artisti c development . 98

Beginnings of the New Age This is most clearly seen in his first pamphlet, th e Thoughts on the Imitation. Many o f th e passage s i n thi s influentia l fascicl e mak e ful l sens e whe n we rea d the m a s explicitl y addresse d t o th e artist s o f hi s time , a s a theoretician's attemp t t o direc t painter s an d sculptor s i n thei r work . One o f hi s mos t famou s sentence s proclaimed : ' T h e onl y wa y fo r u s t o become great , yes , inimitable , i f i t i s possible , i s th e imitatio n o f th e Greeks." 9 Thi s endlessl y quote d pronouncemen t contain s concept s tha t are firmly roote d i n th e traditio n o f practica l an d educationa l ar t theor y as i t ha d bee n practice d sinc e th e earl y day s o f th e Renaissance . T o b e great, "i f i t i s possible , inimitable, " wa s th e goa l toward s whic h artist s had bee n educate d sinc e Leon e Battist a Alberti' s day . Further , th e creation o f a wor k o f art , o r a comprehensiv e artisti c opus , i s carrie d out b y wa y o f imitatin g models—thi s woul d hav e bee n take n fo r granted b y everyone holdin g a brush o r a chisel i n hi s hands. Addressin g the artis t i n suc h a wa y coul d hav e ha d on e meanin g only : i t wa s a n attempt t o chang e th e characte r o f th e wor k o f art . In hi s attempt s t o influenc e practicin g artist s an d t o chang e th e direction o f thei r development , Winckelman n di d no t remai n i n th e realm o f generalities. Throughout th e Thoughts on Imitation, an d i n a more general sens e i n hi s whol e work , h e bot h criticize d artist s wh o repre sented style s h e ha d rejecte d an d hel d u p fo r emulatio n a new mode l t o contemporary painter s an d sculptors . Criticis m o f th e rejecte d an d presentation o f th e ne w mode l praise d a s the embodimen t o f perfectio n are o f cours e tw o side s o f th e sam e action . The y bot h sho w tha t Winckelmann wa s no t conten t wit h theorizing ; h e wishe d t o brin g about a chang e o f directio n i n th e ar t o f hi s age. Winckelmann's stricture s ar e sharpl y focused ; a t thei r cente r stand s Bernini. H e disapprove s o f othe r artist s a s well , mainl y o f th e seven teenth century , suc h a s Jordaen s (an d Dutc h paintin g i n general ) o r Caravaggio. Bu t i t i s primaril y i n associatio n wit h Bernin i tha t th e principles o f ar t ar e discussed . W e mus t therefor e as k wha t arouse s thi s dislike o f Bernini . Now , Winckelman n neve r doubt s th e virtuosit y o f the grea t Baroqu e sculptor , h e neve r question s th e master' s miraculou s ability t o translat e int o ston e o r bronz e wha t h e ha s i n hi s min d o r perceives i n nature . Th e reaso n fo r hi s censur e o f Bernin i i s th e sculptor's ver y conceptio n o f art . I t i s becaus e o f wha t h e wants, and 99

Modern Theories of Art therefore als o manages , t o represen t tha t h e i s condemned. Th e variou s specific reproache s ca n b e reduce d t o on e basi c argument : Bernin i i s the artis t o f extrem e subjectivism . That subjectivis m ha s man y facets . On e o f the m i s th e addictio n t o an illusion-creatin g sculpture , anothe r i s th e fascinatio n wit h image s produced b y chance , b y a n insignifican t combinatio n o f circumstances . Bernini, Winckelman n believes , efface s th e lin e o f demarcation betwee n nature an d art . Quotin g Baldinucci , Winckelman n assert s that , i n Ber nini's view , natur e ca n provid e al l th e beauties . "H e pride d himsel f o n having los t hi s preconceive d opinio n o f th e superiorit y o f th e Greeks , which h e ha d originall y hel d becaus e o f th e beaut y o f th e Medicea n Venus, whe n afte r thoroug h stud y h e discovere d th e sam e beaut y i n nature itself." 10 I n Winckelmann' s view , a moder n schola r ha s said , Bernini i s th e "Antichrist. " n The danger s o f suc h subjectivis m ca n b e appreciate d whe n on e realizes ho w strongl y i t appeal s t o th e young . I n lively , evocativ e term s Winckelmann describe s th e tast e o f th e youn g artist s o f hi s time . "Nothing earn s thei r applaus e bu t exaggerate d pose s an d actions , ac companied b y a n insolen t 'dash ' tha t the y regar d a s spiritedness , o r Tranchezza,' a s the y say . Their favorit e concep t i s 'contrapposto,' whic h to the m i s th e essenc e o f everythin g tha t make s fo r artisti c perfection . They wan t thei r figures t o hav e soul s a s eccentri c a s comets ; t o the m every figure i s a n Aja x an d Capaneus." 12 I t i s perhap s becaus e o f thes e tendencies i n th e ar t o f hi s tim e tha t Winckelman n approache s Baroqu e art a s i f i t wer e th e ar t o f th e present . Bernini , who , a s w e know , ha d been dea d fo r ove r tw o generations , i s considere d a contemporary , an d a dangerou s on e a t that . I t i s thi s feelin g o f th e immediat e presenc e o f the pas t tha t give s Winckelmann' s argumen t a particula r urgency , an d turns i t int o somethin g mor e tha n a n academi c affair . What remed y ha s Winckelman n t o offe r t o th e artist s o f hi s time ? His reactio n t o wha t h e foun d i n contemporar y ar t i s typica l o f th e great traditio n o f ar t theor y tha t wa s th e legac y o f th e Renaissance . H e does no t concentrat e o n individua l fallacies—o r "errors, " a s the y wer e then called—no r doe s h e sugges t individua l remedie s fo r thes e errors . Not eve n specific , well-outline d correctiv e method s ar e proposed , suc h as certai n type s o f drawing , system s o f colorin g o r carving . Wha t ou r ioo

Beginnings of the New Age author present s t o th e artist s o f hi s tim e i s a n inclusiv e idea l o f ar t an d culture. "No w th e pures t source s o f ar t ar e open ; fortunat e h e wh o knows ho w t o find the m an d t o tast e them . T o see k thes e source s means t o g o t o Athens . . . ." 1 3 By holdin g u p th e Greek s a s th e redeemin g model , a s "th e pures t sources'' o f ar t an d culture , Winckelman n affecte d no t onl y th e ar t o f his time ; h e initiated , an d t o n o mea n degre e helpe d t o brin g about , a revolution i n th e imag e tha t ha d prevaile d fo r centuries . T o Europe , from th e Middl e Age s throug h th e Baroque , th e imag e o f Antiquity wa s clearly Rome-centered . Centurie s o f ecclesiastica l policy , o f pilgrimage s and legends , o f sacre d historiograph y an d cultura l activitie s i n a variet y of fields ha d graduall y buil t u p thi s image . Eve r sinc e th e Renaissance , the sam e vie w ha d als o bee n explicitl y vali d fo r th e historica l develop ment o f th e arts . A glance a t Vasar i i s sufficien t t o sho w tha t fo r hi m and fo r hi s audienc e i t i s a matte r o f cours e t o conside r Roma n cultur e and Roma n ar t a s th e ultimat e achievemen t o f Antiquity . Rinascimento dell'antichita, it goe s withou t saying , i s th e reviva l o f Roma n antiquit y and Roma n style . Thi s visio n o f Antiquit y persiste d i n th e seventeent h century, an d i t becam e crucia l i n th e eighteenth . Montesquie u an d Gibbon attest , i f any testimon y b e needed , ho w centra l th e Roma n pas t and th e Roma n mode l ar e fo r thei r view s o f societ y an d history . I n 172^, Giambattist a Vic o claimed , withou t hesitatio n an d withou t con tradiction, tha t i t wa s th e ancien t Romans , no t th e Greeks , wh o wer e the heroe s o f th e ancien t world . At th e ver y tim e tha t Winckelman n wa s praisin g Greec e a s th e climax o f ancient culture , th e veneratio n o f Rome , specificall y i n it s rol e as th e embodimen t o f antichita, attaine d a uniqu e artisti c expression . Since th e 1740s , th e architec t an d draftsma n Giovann i Battist a Piranes i had bee n singin g th e praise s o f ancien t Rom e i n hi s engravings . Hi s Vedute di Roma brought th e grandeu r o f ancien t Roma n monument s t o educated collector s an d reader s al l ove r Europe . In 17^6 , almost exactl y at th e momen t whe n Winckelmann' s Thoughts on Imitation became avail able t o th e ver y fe w reader s fo r who m i t wa s originall y destined , Piranesi publishe d hi s Antichita wmane x an d i n 176 1 th e splendi d Delia magniflcenza ed architettura de' romani reache d th e markets . I n thes e publications Piranes i defende d th e patrioti c clai m tha t decoro e gravita 101

Modern Theories of Art are genuin e Roma n qualities , tha t the y ar e th e resul t o f th e Roma n affinity fo r th e sublime , an d tha t the y wer e know n t o Roma n cultur e before th e Latin s eve n encountere d th e Greeks. 14 It i s agains t thi s backgroun d tha t w e shoul d weig h Winckelmann' s claim tha t th e tru e source s o f originalit y an d greatnes s i n ar t ar e t o b e found i n Greece , an d tha t Roma n ar t i s derivative . " A statu e b y a Roman maste r compare s wit h it s Gree k prototyp e a s Virgil' s Did o compares wit h Nausica a o f Home r o n who m sh e i s modelled." 15 Here tw o question s aris e an d mus t b e answere d befor e w e ca n understand th e dept h an d significanc e o f Winckelmann' s work . Bot h questions ar e simple . On e is : wha t wa s i t tha t mad e Winckelman n search fo r specificall y Gree k art ? Th e othe r is : wha t di d h e find i n thi s search? Wha t ar e th e centra l feature s o f Gree k art , a s h e sa w it ? The first question , obviou s an d uncomplicate d a s i t appear s t o be , has receive d rathe r scan t consideratio n fro m moder n scholars . Ye t wha t Winckelmann di d b y shiftin g hi s attentio n fro m Rom e t o Greec e wa s not onl y unusua l a t th e time ; it wa s of great consequenc e i n overturnin g a historica l constructio n tha t ha d bee n hallowe d fo r centuries . Wh y di d he chang e th e mode l o f Antiquity ? Wer e h e simpl y a historian , inten t upon finding ou t th e "tru e facts, " wishin g t o establis h th e correc t precedence o f Greec e ove r Rome , i t woul d b e easie r t o explai n hi s attempts. Bu t Winckelman n wa s no t i n th e first plac e a historian . A s we know , h e cam e t o writin g histor y lon g afte r hi s gaze ha d bee n firmly fixed o n th e mode l characte r o f Greece . I n hi s Thoughts on Imitation he clearly describe d Gree k ar t a s th e dominant , actuall y a s th e single , model o f perfection ; her e classica l ar t doe s no t eve n see m t o hav e an y history. Th e History of Ancient Art, wher e h e follow s th e developmen t o f classical art , wa s writte n onl y year s later . Winckelmann' s turnin g t o Greece canno t b e satisfactoril y explaine d b y th e historian' s interes t alone. Hi s attempt , s o full y vindicate d b y th e scholarl y wor k o f subse quent generations , t o replac e th e inherite d Roma n paradig m b y a Gree k model o f perfectio n raise s interestin g question s als o wit h regar d t o hi s personal motivations . Hi s attitud e t o th e Roma n legac y wa s ambivalent . On th e on e hand , h e wa s fascinate d b y th e tradition , h e love d th e cit y of Rom e becaus e i n i t th e grea t pas t wa s alive . O n th e othe r hand , hi s life's wor k amounte d t o a heroi c endeavo r t o supersed e th e Roma n b y 102

Beginnings of the New Age an "original " Gree k cultur e an d artisti c tradition , an d h e neve r stoppe d dreaming o f visitin g Athens , a drea m tha t h e neve r realized . Psycholo gists, on e canno t hel p thinking , woul d find Winckelmann' s aborte d attempts t o reac h Athen s a n interestin g cas e o f interna l conflict . Th e exaltation o f Greec e i s hard t o understan d withou t feelin g a n ambiguit y in hi s approac h t o Rome . That Winckelman n wa s attracte d t o Rome , t o th e cit y an d t o th e culture, need s n o explanation ; tha t ther e wa s a n ambiguit y i n thi s relationship, however , does . Ther e coul d hav e bee n man y reason s fo r this implie d criticis m o f th e Roma n mode l an d it s influenc e o n th e ar t and though t o f Europe . Winckelmann' s work , a s a moder n schola r ha s pointed out, 16 betray s a certai n outrag e agains t th e despotis m o f th e ancien regime. Now , bot h th e regim e an d it s despotis m dre w thei r legitimation fro m a Roma n imperia l model . Th e rejectio n o f moder n despotism ma y hav e affecte d als o th e source s o f legitimation. Rom e wa s likewise intimatel y linke d wit h th e Christia n tradition . I t wa s th e Roman Catholic Churc h tha t dominate d no t onl y th e Middl e Age s bu t als o th e kingdoms o f th e present . Muc h ha s bee n sai d agains t a to o narro w interpretation o f wha t ha s bee n calle d Winckelmann' s "paganism," 17 but on e wonder s whethe r hi s turnin g t o a pre-Christia n cultur e di d not, afte r all , impl y a criticis m o f Rome . Winckelman n ma y als o hav e felt tha t ther e wa s a certai n affinit y betwee n a mainstrea m i n ancien t Roman, particularl y imperial , ar t an d th e ar t o f th e Baroque . Wa s i t no t possible, afte r all , tha t Bernin i dre w fro m dee p root s i n th e artisti c tradition o f hi s city ? Nothin g o f thi s i s explicitl y state d i n th e writings , but th e attentiv e reade r ofte n canno t avoi d feelin g these , o r similar , thoughts lurkin g behin d Winckelmann' s text . Turning t o Greece , on e shoul d no t forget , wa s no t a n altogethe r personal affai r o f Winckelmann's . Interes t i n th e Gree k componen t o f classical cultur e bega n t o sti r i n Winckelmann' s time , particularl y i n France an d i n England . "Th e Greek s wer e th e teacher s o f the Romans, " Diderot remarke d t o Catherin e th e Great , and , o n anothe r occasion , h e said tha t Thale s wa s th e first thinke r wh o "introduce d metho d int o philosophy, an d [he ] i s th e first t o deserv e th e nam e o f philosopher." 18 Voltaire liste d th e origina l contribution s o f th e Greeks : "Beautifu l architecture, perfec t sculpture , painting , goo d music , tru e poetry , tru e 103

Modern Theories of Art eloquence, th e metho d o f writin g goo d history , finally philosoph y itself , however incomplet e an d obscure—al l thes e cam e t o th e nation s fro m the Greek s alone." 19 Ther e wa s als o a beginnin g o f interes t i n th e aesthetic aspect s an d artisti c remain s o f Gree k culture . I n 176 2 appeare d the firs t volum e o f th e magnificen t publicatio n Antiquity of Athens, a collection o f drawing s tha t brough t view s o f th e grea t Gree k monu ments t o th e awarenes s o f th e learne d i n Europe . Winckelmann's conjurin g u p o f Gree k antiquity , on e canno t hel p feeling, ha s a certai n affinit y t o th e presentatio n o f a Utopia n vision . I t goes withou t saying , I think, tha t ou r autho r wa s no t awar e tha t h e wa s distancing hi s vision—to a certain extent , a t least—fro m actua l reality ; surely h e di d no t inten d anythin g lik e this . Ye t i n spit e o f hi s lac k o f intention an d awareness , hi s imag e o f ancien t Greec e canno t b e denie d a certai n Utopia n quality . The undercurren t leadin g t o th e displacemen t o f th e Greec e h e sa w in hi s min d fro m everyday , terrestria l realit y ca n bes t b e fel t i n hi s descriptions o f ancien t work s o f ar t a s "sacred. " Gree k statues , th e reader o f Winckelmann' s writing s feel s agai n an d again , mysteriousl y partake o f th e sanctit y o f thei r sacre d sites , s o muc h s o that , i n fact , they carr y som e vestige s o f tha t holines s int o th e museum s wher e w e now se e them . I t i s o f cours e difficul t t o dra w a shar p lin e o f demarca tion betwee n a n outrigh t metapho r an d a statemen t whos e litera l meaning ma y b e calle d i n question . Thus , whe n Winckelman n say s tha t Greek image s o f th e u god an d heroe s ar e a s i f standing o n sacre d spot s where silenc e dwells,' ' ho w ar e w e t o understan d thi s assertion ? T o appreciate wha t Winckelman n say s w e probabl y hav e t o consider , an d grant significanc e an d weigh t to , tha t ill-define d are a betwee n meta phorical form s o f expressio n an d statement s mean t t o b e understoo d literally. The sacred , i n a sens e nonterrestrial , characte r o f Gree k statue s i s strongly suggeste d b y th e recurrin g reques t fo r aw e an d silenc e i n thei r presence. Th e appropriat e wa y o f lookin g a t a Gree k figure i s tha t o f a semisacred contemplation . Tim e an d again , Winckelman n emphasizes , as the Germa n literar y schola r Walte r Reh m ha s clearly seen , th e silenc e and stillnes s surroundin g th e beautifu l figures o f a n Apoll o o r a n Aphrodite. Silence , i n general , become s a conditio n o f a supernatura l 104

Beginnings of the New Age beauty an d perfection . Grace , th e activ e for m o f beaut y i n huma n experience, h e says , work s "onl y i n th e simplicit y an d silenc e o f th e soul." 20 Another ambiguity , mor e difficul t t o pi n dow n bu t possibl y mor e important tha n othe r features , canno t b e ignored . Winckelman n hold s up Gree k antiquit y a s a n idea l mode l fo r imitation . Bu t ho w i s th e modern artis t suppose d t o imitat e thi s idea l hoverin g i n a slightly unrea l world an d beyon d hi s reach ? Wher e shoul d h e star t wit h hi s imitation ? Which particula r feature s o r aspect s i s he bein g aske d t o assimilate ? Th e careful reade r note s somethin g o f a paradox . Whil e Winckelman n presents ancien t Gree k ar t a s a mode l fo r imitation , h e almos t com pletely lack s an y didacti c approach . H e doe s no t tr y t o giv e practica l assistance t o th e contemporar y artis t wh o woul d striv e toward s th e ideal visio n o f mythica l Greece . I n thi s respect , I believe , h e depart s from th e Renaissanc e legacy . Artist s an d teacher s i n th e Renaissanc e also ha d a n imag e o f a Golde n Ag e whic h the y mad e a mode l fo r emulation. Ye t t o facilitat e imitation , the y analyze d thei r idea l model , they trie d t o isolat e "principles " o r "parts. " Winckelman n di d nothin g of th e kind . On e canno t hel p wonderin g ho w h e though t a moder n artist wa s suppose d t o emulat e wha t h e wa s bein g show n a s a n ideal . Winckelmann's Greec e i s a divin e revelatio n rathe r tha n a didacti c model. 2. TH E "CLASSICAL "

In evokin g Winckelmann' s wor k on e canno t hel p als o raisin g th e thorny, elusive , an d ye t unavoidable , proble m o f th e classical . I t i s Winckelmann, afte r all , wh o i s generall y considere d a s th e principa l founder o f classicis m (o r Neoclassicism , a s some woul d lik e t o cal l it ) i n the moder n world . In aestheti c reflection , ther e i s probabl y n o ter m that ha s bee n s o frequentl y an d s o indistinctl y use d a s "th e classical. " As a result , th e so-calle d classica l ha s becom e a Protea n notion , lackin g precise meaning . Surveyin g th e literature , on e sometime s wonder s wha t has no t bee n considered , a t on e poin t o r another , a s being , or belongin g to, th e essenc e o f th e classical . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o attemp t t o cu t a path throug h thi s labyrinthine wilderness ; we shal l not offe r stil l anothe r IO£

Modern Theories of Art description o f "th e classical. " Bu t w e shal l tr y t o loo k int o som e o f th e major context s i n whic h th e notio n appear s i n Winckelmann' s thought . Let u s begi n wit h a brie f glanc e a t a distan t past . Erns t Rober t Curtius, th e grea t schola r o f literar y traditions , ha s reminde d moder n readers ho w th e ter m classicis m originate d an d tha t th e ter m classicus appeared fo r th e first—and, i n Antiquity , th e only—time . I t wa s a Roman autho r o f th e secon d centur y A.D. , Aulus Gellius , wh o use d (o r coined) i t (Nodes Atticae, XIX, 8,1^) . Whe n i n doub t a s t o ho w t o us e an expression , h e suggests , follo w a model author : "Som e o f th e orator s or poets , wh o a t leas t belon g t o th e olde r band , tha t is , a first clas s [id est, classicus] an d tax-payin g author , no t a proletarian.' ' Her e "classical, " though associate d wit h ta x paying , ha s th e functio n o f th e model . Th e idea live d o n i n on e for m o r another , bu t th e wor d di d no t achiev e wide currenc y an d di d no t acquir e it s specifically moder n terminologica l meaning unti l fairl y recen t times. 21 I n th e cas e o f grea t historica l o r cultural units , suc h a s "th e Greeks, " i t ha s bee n applie d onl y i n th e las t two centuries . Thus , partl y a s a resul t o f Winckelmann' s work , aroun d 1800 peopl e bega n usin g th e ter m "classica l philology, " and , a littl e later, "classica l archaeology. " In considerin g Winckelmann' s attitud e t o th e classical , w e shoul d begin b y makin g a simpl e statement : s o fa r a s I ca n see , Winckelman n never use d th e ter m "classical. " Thoug h h e i s deepl y involve d wit h th e idea o f th e classical , h e di d no t coin , no r di d h e tak e over , a particula r term t o designat e thi s idea . I t woul d b e idl e t o speculat e o n th e reason s — a n d the y ma y hav e bee n various—fo r thi s omission . Ye t whateve r they were , i t i s certai n tha t Winckelman n wa s sufficientl y awar e o f th e complexity an d multivalenc e o f th e phenomen a groupe d togethe r i n what w e cal l th e classica l tha t h e coul d no t file the m unde r a singl e heading. Instea d o f usin g suc h conceptua l term s a s the classical , Winck elmann, a s a rule , employ s concrete , historica l word s o r phrase s t o define wha t h e means . Thu s h e speak s o f "th e Greeks, " o r o f "th e ancients." Eve n wher e h e use s th e mor e genera l formulation , h e ha s specific group s i n mind : Athenia n artists , o r th e Greeks . Often , i n fact , Winckelmann use s th e idea of th e classica l i n a moder n sense : artist s belonging t o differen t period s o f histor y ar e groupe d togethe r i n th e same category ; th e Greek s an d Raphae l ar e considere d representativ e o f 106

Beginnings of the New Age the sam e typ e o r model . Ye t eve n i n thi s cas e h e doe s no t designat e them b y a commo n term . Thi s characteristi c featur e o f Winckelmann' s terminology ma y tel l u s somethin g abou t hi s view s an d ideas . H e neve r conceived o f the classica l a s of an abstrac t category . Wha t h e considere d classical wa s alway s somethin g tha t happene d i n history , i n a specifi c place an d time , i n fifth-century Athen s o r i n sixteenth-centur y Rome . It i s part o f a historica l reality . This i s no t th e whol e stor y however . Whil e Winckelman n neve r altogether detache s th e classica l fro m history , h e endow s i t wit h quali ties an d function s tha t ar e no t completel y draine d of f int o history . Though th e phenomen a calle d "classical " unavoidabl y occu r a t a give n place an d time , the y posses s somethin g tha t w e shoul d call , unasham edly, a timeles s essence . Th e classica l i s no t onl y a historica l tradition , it i s als o a superhistorica l epiphany . Here , too , Winckelman n ha s n o special term . Nevertheless , h e expresse s himsel f clearly . H e no t onl y tells th e stor y o f Gree k art , h e als o want s t o explai n wha t i t i s tha t makes Gree k ar t s o great. Befor e w e ca n dea l wit h th e specifi c contents , the concret e characterization s o f classica l ar t i n Winckelmann' s work , we must briefl y surve y th e majo r context s o f the classica l i n his thought , of th e reason s fo r it s bein g a model . The classical , whateve r els e i t ma y o r ma y no t be , ha s fo r Winckel mann th e qualit y o f th e primeval , th e aborigina l beginning . T o b e sure , this beginnin g i s no t t o b e understoo d a s th e origi n i n a purel y chronological sense . Winckelman n knew , o f course, tha t histor y di d no t start i n Greece . I n hi s History of Ancient Art he naturall y devote d th e first chapters t o th e ar t o f Egyp t an d th e ancien t Nea r East , th e grea t historical division s tha t precede d Gree k cultur e i n time . Nevertheless , i t is Greece, a s follows fro m hi s text , tha t mark s th e rea l beginnin g o f art . Why, an d i n wha t sense , i s thi s so ? To pu t i t a s briefl y a s possible , ou r author understand s th e notion s o f "beginning " o r "origin " a s th e primary castin g o f mold s fo r artisti c creatio n i n general . Egyptian s an d Phoenicians, Persian s an d Etrurians—thi s i s ho w Winckelman n name s the culture s precedin g th e Greeks—ar e i n a wa y considere d a s specia l cases. Universality , a t leas t i n th e sens e o f providin g model s fo r furthe r creation, begin s wit h Greece . I t wa s th e Greek s wh o articulate d th e central motif s an d pattern s i n al l majo r fields o f though t an d huma n 107

Modern Theories of Art creation. I n doin g so , they opene d u p th e continuit y o f culture i n whic h we hav e bee n livin g eve r since . Gree k ar t ha d it s significan t par t i n th e process. A s Gree k mytholog y establishe d a n inexhaustibl e repertor y o f themes an d variations , s o Gree k ar t coine d type s tha t see m t o b e inexhaustible i n variet y an d "eternal " i n duration . On e o f th e crucia l features o f th e classica l i s it s archetypa l nature . Encountering th e aborigina l beginnin g i n Gree k ar t becam e fo r Winckelmann als o a persona l experience , whic h h e ofte n forcefull y expressed. " A fe w day s ago, " h e wrot e onc e t o a friend, "ther e cam e t o light a hea d o f Palla s tha t i n beaut y surpasse s everythin g tha t a huma n eye ca n see , an d tha t ca n com e int o a man' s hear t an d thought . I remained stupefie d a s I saw it." 22 Another contes t o f th e classical , relate d t o th e archetypa l ye t i n a sense oppose d t o it , ma y mos t appropriatel y b e terme d "canonical. " The notio n an d ter m o f "canon " originated , a s on e knows , i n th e field of law . Fro m tha t origi n i t ma y hav e inherited , an d stil l carry , certai n legal connotations . Ye t th e ter m i s applie d t o man y fields. Fo r Winck elmann i t ha s a particular significance . A cano n consist s o f a limite d numbe r o f model s presente d fo r imitation, application , o r following . Thes e "canonical " models , accord ing t o th e natur e o f th e domain , ma y b e sacre d texts , ancien t laws , o r almost an y othe r articulatio n i n a centra l domai n o f belief , behavior , o r creation. Ye t howeve r varie d the y ma y b e wit h regar d t o thei r natur e and material , the y hav e tw o basi c characteristic s i n common : first, the y are specific , distinct , an d self-enclose d units . I t i s essential fo r th e cano n that i t no t b e a genera l idea , bu t a serie s o f individua l paradigms . Second, th e canoni c model s ar e considere d a s binding , thei r validit y i s not disputed . Whethe r ther e i s an intrinsi c orde r amon g th e paradigms , thus formin g a system, i s a matter tha t nee d no t detai n u s here . A mode l fo r imitatio n i s th e cornerston e o f tradition . Curtiu s ha s described i n detai l ho w th e tradition s o f medieva l learning , medieva l law, and moder n literatur e wer e oblige d t o for m thei r respectiv e canon s in orde r t o persis t a s traditions. 23 Winckelmann's approac h t o Gree k ar t conspicuousl y lean s toward s the formatio n o f a canon . H e approache s thi s undertakin g i n tw o ways . TJie first tas k Winckelman n se t himsel f i n Rome , s o h e tell s us, 24 wa s 108

Beginnings of the New Age to describ e th e statue s i n th e Belvedere . No t everythin g place d i n tha t cortile was t o b e covered . Ou r autho r specifie s fou r statue s tha t h e meant t o include , an d t o reproduce , i n hi s description : th e famou s Apollo, the Laocoon, the so-calle d Antinous, an d wha t i s know n a s th e Torso Belvedere. H e chos e thes e pieces , h e says , becaus e the y embod y th e "utmost perfectio n o f ancien t sculpture. " Th e description , w e furthe r learn, wa s t o b e arrange d i n tw o parts : th e first "wit h regar d t o th e ideal, th e othe r accordin g t o art. " Translate d int o moder n terms , thi s means tha t Winckelman n wishe d t o trea t th e idea , o r intention , behin d the statues , an d ho w tha t ide a wa s execute d i n har d stone . Thi s tas k however, h e writes , prove d beyon d hi s ability. 25 Whateve r th e fat e o f this intende d project , i t clearl y manifest s th e intentio n o f severel y selecting masterpiece s s o tha t the y for m a canon . Another wa y t o arriv e a t th e articulatio n o f a cano n wa s t o recoun t the whol e histor y o f ancien t art . Th e reade r witnessin g Winckelman n unfolding th e broa d panoram a o f th e histor y o f ancien t ar t sometime s feels tha t h e i s participatin g i n a grea t enterpris e tha t t o som e exten t resembles th e proces s o f distillation : i n th e en d h e i s lef t wit h a smal l group—a cluster , on e migh t almos t say—o f selec t work s o f art. Thes e works, i n fac t al l statues , d o no t s o muc h illustrat e th e differen t stage s of ancien t art ; the y ar e rathe r model s o f perfection , mean t t o sho w what i t i s tha t make s Gree k ar t s o great . I t is , o f course , no t a matte r of chanc e tha t thes e exemplar y work s ar e s o closel y interrelated , an d that th e lis t o f work s arrive d a t b y surveyin g th e histor y o f Gree k ar t actually overlap s th e lis t o f work s ou r autho r earlie r calle d individua l models o f perfection . Agai n w e hea r o f th e Laocoon an d th e Apollo from Belvedere, a s wel l a s o f th e Lizard Killer and th e Venus o f th e Medic i collection. Th e stud y o f th e histor y o f Gree k art , on e migh t say , i s a canon-producing process . 3. IMITATIO N

The archetypa l an d th e canonica l ar e no t self-enclosed . The y involv e later development s an d the y presuppos e a n audienc e tha t ha s a n artic ulate attitud e toward s th e classical . Nothin g i s archetypa l withou t th e existence o f late r stage s tha t full y an d i n man y variation s expres s wha t 109

Modern Theories of Art was containe d i n th e first (arche) formulation o f th e type , an d withou t later culture s tha t conside r tha t earl y formulatio n a s archetypal . Th e same trut h i s eve n mor e obviou s wit h regar d t o th e canonical : withou t a societ y acceptin g certai n law s o r model s a s perfec t an d binding , ther e can b e n o canon . I n th e concept s o f archetyp e an d canon , pas t an d present mee t an d interrelat e i n intricat e an d ofte n tortuou s ways . Thi s relationship o f th e presen t t o th e pas t i s manifeste d i n man y differen t ways. Wit h regar d t o ar t an d artists , i t i s bes t reveale d i n wha t w e cal l imitation. What "imitation' ' originall y meant , a t leas t i n th e Renaissanc e an d Baroque, i s nowaday s ofte n obscured . Th e reaso n fo r thi s obfuscatio n i s that i n ou r tim e th e concep t i s frequentl y place d i n a contex t tha t differs radicall y fro m tha t i n whic h i t originall y appeared . W e ofte n hear o f th e "imitatio n o f nature, " mainl y i n attempt s t o provid e foundations fo r realism . Bu t i n th e centurie s precedin g Winckelmann , the centurie s fro m whos e literatur e h e drew , imitatio wa s primaril y use d in a differen t context . Fo r Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e critic s an d me n o f letters th e ter m denote d th e faithfu l following , th e "imitation, " o f literary an d artisti c models. 26 On e doe s no t hav e t o g o int o a thoroug h discussion o f imitatio n i n orde r t o se e th e differenc e i n characte r an d meaning o f th e notio n tha t result s fro m placin g i t i n thes e tw o differen t contexts. A s a model, natur e i s less clearl y articulat e tha n a work o f art ; it allow s th e artist , o r force s hi m into , mor e choic e an d variatio n than , say, doe s a statue . Imitatin g work s o f art , i t goe s withou t saying , i s more conduciv e t o formin g a traditio n tha n i s th e imitatio n o f nature . This i s als o ho w Winckelman n understoo d "imitation, " an d ho w h e used th e term . On th e titl e pag e o f hi s first publication , w e remember , Winckel mann use s thi s word . Th e carefu l reade r notes , withou t bein g reall y surprised, tha t neve r i s nature , a rea l object , o r a liv e figure presente d as a possibl e mode l fo r th e artist' s imitation . Wha t i s propose d t o hi m are th e work s o f ar t tha t for m par t o f th e canon . Moreover , fo r th e artist th e imitatio n o f canoni c work s o f ar t i s mor e fundamenta l than , and precedes , th e imitatio n o f nature . Th e awarenes s o f for m acquire d in th e imitatio n o f work s o f ar t i s a conditio n fo r detectin g forms , shapes, an d feature s i n nature . Withou t bein g instructe d b y th e canoni c 110

Beginnings of the New Age works o f ar t th e artis t woul d b e blin d t o th e shape s hidde n i n nature . In Winckelmann' s disput e wit h th e artist s o f the Baroque , h e make s th e point tha t withou t th e Greek s w e coul d no t perceiv e th e beaut y i n nature. I t wa s i n th e statu e o f Venus , h e says , tha t Bernin i first perceived thos e beautie s tha t h e late r discovere d i n nature . Wer e i t no t for tha t initia l experience , Bernin i "woul d no t otherwis e hav e sough t [those beauties ] i n th e real m o f nature. " Thi s i s s o becaus e "I t i s easie r to recogniz e th e beaut y o f Gree k statue s tha n th e beaut y o f nature." 2 7 The concep t o f imitatio n i s essentiall y a cultura l one , an d i t create s a universe o f culture . Scanning Renaissanc e literature , on e ma y get th e impressio n tha t th e authors conceive d o f imitatio as o f a simple , monolithi c concept . Close r reading, however , show s u s tha t thi s i s no t th e case . I t wil l b e usefu l for u s t o distinguish , i n a n altogethe r summar y fashion , thre e majo r variations o f th e notio n i n th e though t tha t th e Renaissanc e bequeathe d to late r times . The first typ e o f imitatio n i s based o n a ceremonial veneratio n o f th e ancient model , o f sacrosancta vetustas. This "sacramenta l imitation, " a s Thomas Green e ha s calle d it, 28 b y it s ver y natur e prevent s th e creatio n of new an d dynami c forms . I n principl e a t least , n o chang e o f the mode l is envisioned . Imitatio n i s see n a s a faithfu l an d precis e replicatio n o f the original . In th e secon d variatio n o f th e notion , th e heritag e o f th e past—tha t is, th e models—i s considere d a s a huge repositor y o f forms an d motifs , a vas t containe r fro m whic h th e artis t ca n freel y chos e whateve r h e needs. Th e mode l chose n ha s onl y a limite d influenc e o n th e imitator . It i s he wh o select s an d combine s fro m th e legac y o f th e past . A thir d variatio n o f imitation , i n itsel f ric h i n nuances , i s on e i n which th e imitato r i s awar e o f th e distanc e betwee n himsel f an d hi s model; h e doe s no t entertai n th e illusio n tha t h e ca n reproduc e i t wit h precision, bu t h e als o know s tha t h e canno t ste p ou t o f thi s relationshi p to th e past , tha t h e canno t trea t hi s mode l a s jus t "material, " t o b e handled a t will . Hi s relationshi p t o imitatin g i s no t a n innocen t one ; i t is base d o n th e awarenes s o f th e model' s othernes s an d specificity , bu t also o f it s exemplar y character . Thi s kin d o f imitatio n combine s th e model's powe r t o impos e o n th e presen t a n overal l structur e o r direc 111

Modern Theories of Art tion, an d th e imitator' s freedo m t o develo p an d creat e wha t wa s implie d in th e model . I n thi s dialectica l view , imitatio n i s bot h a followin g o f the pas t an d a ne w creation . This, i n th e broades t o f outlines , wa s th e framewor k tha t histor y provided fo r Winckelmann' s though t o n artisti c imitation . Wha t i s hi s own view ? To him , onl y th e thir d variatio n ca n b e calle d imitation , an d it i s onl y thi s kin d tha t h e ha s i n min d whe n h e speak s o f imitatin g th e Greeks. H e doe s no t conceiv e o f sacramenta l replicatio n a s a n artisti c activity. "A s agains t one' s ow n though t I put copyin g (Nachmachen), no t imitation. B y th e forme r 1 understand slavis h following ; i n th e latter , what i s imitated , i f handle d wit h reason , ma y assum e a n othe r nature , as i t were , an d becom e one' s own." 2 9 Her e on e ca n clearl y se e th e difference betwee n medieva l an d moder n thought . I n the spiritua l worl d of th e Middl e Ages , the mor e precis e a n imitatio n i s the bette r i t is . Fo r modern man , th e creativ e ac t shoul d manifes t itsel f eve n i n imitation . I t is therefor e no t surprisin g tha t th e sam e Winckelman n wh o make s th e imitation o f th e Greek s th e highes t achievemen t possibl e t o th e presen t world shoul d als o trea t litera l copyin g i n derogator y terms . Winckelmann doe s no t spea k a t lengt h abou t th e secon d variet y o f imitation, tha t whic h consider s th e pas t a s a warehous e o f ready-mad e motifs an d formulae . Tha t h e mus t hav e bee n oppose d t o suc h a n interpretation goe s withou t saying . Tim e an d agai n h e stresse s th e ide a of th e whole , o f th e comprehensiv e patter n i n Gree k art , considerin g this a n essentia l qualit y o f it s mode l character . "Th e notion s o f th e whole, o f th e perfec t i n th e natur e o f Antiquit y wil l purif y an d mak e more sensua l th e notion s o f th e divide d i n ou r nature." 3 0 I n Winckel mann's thought , wholenes s an d perfectio n ar e almos t overlappin g no tions. Emphasizin g th e wholenes s o f th e Gree k mode l i s probabl y th e beginning o f tha t tren d o f thought , s o dominan t i n Germa n classica l thought an d literature , tha t reject s th e fragmentary , eve n i f i t i s fasci nating. Winckelman n i s ver y fa r fro m th e romantic' s concer n fo r th e fragmentary an d th e incomplete . What, then , i s th e objec t o f imitation ? Wha t i s th e moder n artis t asked t o imitat e i f he follow s Winckelmann' s advic e an d take s work s o f Greek ar t a s hi s models ? Th e emphasi s o n wholenes s impose s o n th e modern studen t a n observatio n concernin g ou r author' s persona l con ditions. Winckelman n spen t mos t o f hi s lif e lookin g a t fragments , 112

Beginnings of the New Age studying work s o f ar t tha t reache d hi m i n a n incomplete , damage d condition. Amids t al l thes e broke n piece s (part s o f whic h populat e ou r museums) h e cultivate d i n hi s min d th e ide a o f a n idealized , unharme d perfection, a wholeness tha t belie s th e destructio n cause d b y time . On e is tempte d t o sens e her e anothe r Utopia n strea k i n Winckelmann' s intellectual an d psychologica l makeup . Bu t how , on e mus t ask , ar e w e to discer n perfectio n an d wholenes s i n work s o f ar t tha t hav e almos t invariably reache d u s as fragments ? In grasping th e wholenes s hidde n i n fragmentary piece s o f sculpture , there i s littl e differenc e betwee n th e spectato r wh o experience s a work of Gree k ar t an d th e artis t wh o imitate s it . Th e origina l whole , i t goe s without saying , i s no t directl y availabl e t o eithe r o f them , bu t i t ca n b e recreated b y bot h th e spectato r an d th e artist . Bu t wha t specifi c "object" ar e w e t o recreate ? Wha t Winckelman n think s w e shoul d recreate—both a s spectator s an d a s artists—i s th e origina l intentio n of th e artis t wh o mad e th e work . Tha t intentio n ca n b e divine d eve n from a small fragment . Her e Winckelman n present s wha t i s sometime s called th e ex pede Herculem theory : from th e smal l fragmen t o f a piece o f classical sculptur e w e ca n divin e th e whol e figure, and , wha t i s more , the imag e tha t originall y dwel t i n th e artist' s mind . T o recaptur e tha t elusive imag e i s the ai m of Winckelmann' s cognitiv e an d artistic efforts . 4. BEAUT Y

The exploration o f Winckelmann' s thought s abou t imitatio n bring s u s to hi s notio n o f Perfec t Beaut y an d th e Ideal . The Idea l o r Beaut y i s a notion difficul t t o define , particularl y a s use d b y a writer lik e Winckel mann wh o wa s no t a philosopher. H e use d th e term frequently—bot h as a noun an d a s th e adjectiv e "idealisch" —but nowhere di d h e defin e it; as wit h othe r concept s i n Winckelmann' s thought , on e ha s t o lear n its meanin g fro m th e context . I t ma y therefor e b e bes t t o describ e th e Ideal b y settin g i t of f fro m wha t i t i s not . Th e Ideal , w e know , i s first of al l oppose d t o th e natural , t o th e precis e imitatio n o f th e shape s tha t we encounte r i n everyda y life . Ye t i t woul d b e wron g t o conclud e tha t Winckelmann tend s t o attenuat e th e Idea l int o a mer e intellectua l notion o r idea, that h e want s t o transfor m i t int o a kind o f imag e i n th e mind. O n th e contrary , i t i s essentia l fo r th e Idea l tha t i t hav e a ful l "3

Modern Theories of Art material nature , tha t it s presenc e i s unrestrictedl y felt , eve n thoug h under condition s tha t ma y see m scarcel y attainable . The philosophica l statu s o f th e Ideal , o r o f Perfec t Beauty , nee d no t worry u s to o much . Winckelman n himsel f wa s no t overl y concerne d with th e theoretica l statu s o f th e notion , an d hi s writing s wil l easil y yield contradictor y statement s o n it . Wha t i s mor e importan t fo r ou r purpose i s wha t Idea l o r Beaut y actuall y mea n i n hi s work . I t i s th e material specification s tha t coun t here . W e mus t therefor e as k wha t h e saw wit h hi s mind' s ey e whe n h e spok e o f absolut e beaut y an d o f th e ideal. Wha t ar e th e specifi c qualitie s h e ascribe d t o thi s crucia l notion ? In tryin g t o answe r thi s questio n w e ar e o n firmer groun d tha n i n a n effort t o defin e notion s o f abstrac t methodology . In attemptin g t o describ e th e actua l content s o f th e Ideal , o r o f Perfect Beauty , Winckelman n i s awar e tha t h e i s aimin g a t somethin g that i s perhap s beyon d man' s reach . I n th e par t o f hi s History of Ancient Art devote d t o analyzin g th e reason s fo r th e superiorit y o f Gree k ove r the ar t o f an y othe r tim e an d nation , h e dwell s o n th e difficultie s o f describing beauty . "I t i s easier," h e declares , "t o sa y wha t i t i s not tha n what i t is. " And a few line s later , h e admits : "Beaut y i s one o f th e grea t mysteries o f nature." 31 Winckelmann' s understandin g o f Absolut e Beaut y is i n essenc e base d o n rejectin g an y specifi c qualitie s a s prope r descrip tions. Wha t h e say s o f th e experienc e o f idea l beaut y i s comparabl e t o some mystics ' account o f their experienc e o f God. A s the mysti c strivin g to reac h Go d b y describin g th e divin e attribute s mus t finally conclud e that al l qualification s onl y falsif y th e divin e source , s o Winckelman n trying t o describ e th e specifi c qualitie s o f Idea l Beaut y mus t eventuall y conclude tha t thi s Beaut y i s ineffable an d canno t b e capture d i n distinc t categories. A n essentia l attribut e o f loft y beauty , h e tell s hi s readers , i s the absenc e o f individuality . Wha t doe s thi s mean ? Her e i s how Winck elmann himsel f put s it : According t o this idea, beauty shoul d b e like the bes t kin d of water, draw n from th e sprin g itself; the les s taste i t has, the more healthfu l i t is considered, because free fro m al l foreign admixture. 32 Only on e qualit y ca n b e attribute d t o Idea l Beauty . T o designat e it , Winckelmann doe s no t emplo y an y technica l term , an d th e wor d h e 114

Beginnings of the New Age does us e neve r becam e a technica l term . Thi s qualit y i s "unspecificity " (Unbezeichnung). Thi s i s how h e describe s it : From unity proceed s another attribut e of lofty beauty , unspecificity; tha t is, the form s o f i t ar e describe d neithe r b y point s no r b y line s othe r tha n thos e which shap e beaut y merely , an d consequentl y produc e a figure whic h i s neither peculia r t o an y particula r individual , no r ye t expresse s an y on e stat e of th e min d o r affectio n o f th e passions , becaus e thes e blen d wit h i t strang e lines, and mar th e unity. 33 A dialectical, perhap s eve n a paradoxical, tren d o f though t dominate s Winckelmann's work . H e i s a historian , bu t h e i s no t conten t wit h telling a story ; tim e an d agai n h e attempt s t o describ e wha t h e himsel f has recognize d a s bein g beyon d description ; h e alway s strive s t o articu late wha t h e himsel f ha s identifie d a s ineffable . N o wonder , then , tha t the metapho r becam e th e centra l mediu m o f hi s languag e an d hi s thought. I t ha s bee n note d tha t hi s metaphors , whil e describin g th e works an d essenc e o f Gree k art , ar e als o intensel y personal . Winckelmann's mos t famou s descriptio n o f th e essenc e o f Gree k ar t is "Nobl e simplicit y an d tranqui l grandeur." 34 Thi s endlessl y quote d epigram i s clearl y base d o n complex , tens e metaphorica l language . Th e notion an d image s o f stillness , quiet , an d cal m play a particularl y significant par t i n ou r author' s though t an d style . Th e choic e o f thes e expressions ma y als o reflect som e persona l evidence . I t wa s perhap s no t by chanc e an d mer e scholarl y objectivit y tha t a man lik e Winckelmann , who coul d hardl y contro l th e storm y passion s of his own life , discovere d "calmness" an d "tranquillity " t o b e th e centra l value s o f Gree k art. 35 Did h e projec t ont o Gree k ar t wha t h e desire d bu t coul d no t attai n fo r himself? O r shoul d w e no t rathe r com e bac k t o th e compariso n wit h the mystic ? Whe n w e contemplat e a wor k o f art , a s follow s fro m Winckelmann's writings , a kin d o f ecstati c stillnes s impose s itsel f o n us . One canno t hel p thinkin g o f th e mysti c who , whe n h e contemplate s the divine , cease s al l activit y an d eve n dramati c feeling . Historian s o f German literatur e hav e linke d Winckelmann' s elevatio n o f stillness wit h the traditio n o f Pietis m i n Germany . Th e movemen t o f Pietis m goe s back t o th e lat e Middl e Ages , t o mystic s lik e Taule r an d Maste r Eckhardt, bu t i t wa s particularl y stron g i n th e eighteent h century . "S

Modern Theories of Art Winckelmann's fathe r cam e fro m Silesia , wher e Pietis m wa s deepl y rooted. Pietis m mad e quie t an d stillnes s th e scen e o f divin e revelation . One wonder s whethe r Winckelmann' s "stillness " i s no t a secula r ver sion, applie d t o art , o f th e pietist' s religiou s stillness. 36 The compariso n o f stillnes s wit h th e se a i s on e o f Winckelmann' s most memorabl e literar y figures. Throughou t hi s work , th e se a i s considered th e symbo l o f stabilit y an d quiet ; i t evoke s th e memor y o f extinct emotion s an d th e sens e o f a n anonymou s silence . Th e sea' s rough surfac e an d storm y wave s (image s tha t pla y suc h a crucia l rol e i n the histor y o f Europea n literatur e an d symbolism ) ar e t o hi m insignifi cant accessories , no t revealin g th e tru e natur e o f th e element . "A s th e depths o f th e se a remai n alway s a t rest , howeve r th e surfac e ma y b e agitated, s o th e expressio n i n th e figures o f th e Greek s reveal s i n th e midst o f passio n a great an d steadfas t soul, " h e sai d i n hi s first compo sition.37 Th e monumenta l cal m an d stabilit y tha t ar e th e "contents " o f what th e se a tell s u s ar e als o a conditio n fo r ou r perceivin g wha t i s involved i n a wor k o f art . Speakin g o f lookin g a t th e masterpiece s o f Greek art , h e says : A state o f stillnes s an d repos e . . . i s that stat e whic h allow s u s to examin e and discove r thei r rea l natur e an d characteristics , just a s one see s th e botto m of a rive r o r lak e onl y whe n thei r water s ar e stil l an d unruffled , an d conse quently eve n art ca n express her own peculia r natur e only in stillness. 38 Whatever th e origin s o f Winckelmann' s notio n o f "stillness, " w e must as k wha t thi s concept , a s presente d i n hi s writings , mean s fo r th e interpretation o f art . Th e bes t wa y t o answe r th e questio n i s t o sa y what "stillness " i s not . Thes e negations , i t shoul d b e pointe d out , ar e not purel y notional . See n agains t th e historica l condition s i n whic h the y were pu t forward , the y acquir e a materia l meaning . Thi s i n tur n shoul d not lea d u s t o assum e tha t Winckelmann' s conceptua l formulation s ar e no mor e tha n a criticism o f individua l artisti c trends . In a discussio n o f th e theor y o f ar t i t i s importan t t o notic e tha t Winckelmann juxtapose s "stillness " agains t dramati c expression . Pre cisely i n thi s h e mark s th e brea k wit h a grea t tradition . Eve r sinc e th e early Quattrocent o an d u p t o th e lat e Baroque , fro m Leon e Battist a Alberti t o Bernini , th e hig h regar d fo r dramati c expression , fo r th e convincing manifestatio n o f th e passions , was th e centra l categor y o f ar t 116

Beginnings of the New Age criticism. Ar t theor y mad e th e expressio n o f emotion s th e highes t ai m of art , particularl y i n th e nobles t ar t form , th e istoria. To b e sure , throughout thes e centurie s writer s o n ar t als o aske d painter s an d sculptors t o b e moderat e i n th e expressio n o f emotions . Bu t thi s exigence wa s subordinate d t o th e desir e fo r clarit y o f expression ; ther e was neve r an y doub t tha t th e expressin g o f emotion s wa s th e centra l value o f a great wor k o f art . Winckelmann , s o fa r a s I know, i s the first thinker o n ar t wh o explicitl y reject s tha t deman d fo r expressin g passio n in ar t alon g wit h th e scal e o f value s historicall y implie d i n it . The en d o f art , Winckelman n claims , i s beauty , "th e lofties t mar k and th e centra l poin t o f art." 3 9 No t th e representatio n o f reality , no r the givin g o f pleasure , no r th e expressio n o f emotions , a s th e mai n trends o f though t ha d ha d it . Beaut y i s a n autonomou s value , it s caus e cannot b e foun d outsid e itself. 40 Tha t valu e contradict s expression . Beauty, Winckelman n say s i n th e History of Ancient Art, require s "n o expression o f th e passion s o f th e soul. " Moreover , "Expressio n . . . changes th e feature s o f th e face , an d th e posture , an d consequentl y alters thos e form s whic h constitut e beauty." 41 Th e beautiful , i t follows , is expressionless; a beauty devoi d o f emotiona l expressio n i s th e ideal . Greek art , i n it s highes t perfection , i s indee d withou t expression ; with som e exaggeration , yo u migh t sa y tha t i t i s draine d o f emotions . This ca n bes t b e see n i n th e mos t dignifie d work s o f classica l art . Gree k statues o f th e gods , w e read , "sho w n o trac e o f emotion, " the y ar e "tranquil an d passionless." 42 Winckelmann hold s u p thi s paradig m o f expressionless beaut y agains t the ar t o f hi s time . Th e grea t antipod e o f beaut y i s Bernin i precisel y because o f hi s unrestraine d desir e t o expres s emotion s an d hi s marvel ous skil l i n doin g so . Bernin i i s no t isolated , th e ar t o f hi s tim e follow s him, an d eve n th e academie s o f ar t accep t hi s scal e o f values . This exaggerated styl e of expression i s even inculcated b y Charles L e Brun, in his Treatise on the Passions,—a wor k i n th e hand s of most youn g students of art. I n hi s illustrativ e drawings , th e passion s ar e no t onl y represented , i n th e face, i n a n extrem e degree , bu t i n severa l instance s th e expressio n o f the m amounts even t o frenzy. 43 Ideal beauty , on e shoul d remember , i s als o fre e fro m persona l incli nation. "Thos e wis e artists , th e ancients , . . . purified thei r image s fro m 117

Modern Theories of Art all persona l feelings , b y whic h th e min d i s diverte d fro m th e trul y beautiful," Winckelman n declare s i n hi s History of Ancient Art. 44 Ou r author doe s no t s o muc h stres s th e abstentio n fro m persona l feeling s a s the expressionles s characte r o f idea l beauty . I t i s no t difficult , however , to se e tha t th e tw o han g together . The y expres s th e sam e ideal . £. TH E NATUR E O F TH E IDEA L

What wa s thi s ideal ? Modern textbook s ar e likel y t o tel l u s tha t i t i s th e art o f Antiquity , or , mor e specifically , th e ar t o f Greece . Ye t thes e historical label s obviousl y d o no t provid e sufficien t answers , fo r a grea t variety o f import s an d intention s ma y b e subsume d unde r them . Wha t is i t tha t Antiquit y o r Greec e stan d for ? Wha t remain s afte r w e hav e cast of f th e historica l terms ? I t woul d b e presumptuou s fo r u s t o attempt her e a formulation o f Winckelmann 's ideal i n moder n language . The Gree k idea l tha t h e hel d u p a s a redeemin g imag e fo r imitatio n ha s many components . Summarizin g th e discussio n o f Winckelman n a s a theorist o f art , I should lik e t o commen t briefl y o n som e idea s tha t ar e crucial i n hi s intellectua l world . Nowadays Winckelman n i s often see n a s th e forerunner , o r eve n th e founder, o f a refine d aestheticism , tha t is , o f a movemen t tha t trie s t o isolate th e beautifu l fro m al l context s an d t o mak e i t full y autonomous . Such a classificatio n o f Winckelmann , however , i s completely mistaken . Beauty an d art , h e believed , follo w fro m mora l reasons ; th e ver y natur e of great ar t i s profoundl y moral . I n th e spiri t o f th e ag e h e admired , h e never detache d th e beautifu l fro m th e good . Th e ter m h e mos t fre quently use d t o describ e beaut y an d grea t art , an d eve n t o designat e specific component s o f th e wor k o f art—such a s contour—is "noble. " "The nobles t contou r unite s an d circumscribe s al l th e part s o f th e mos t beautiful natur e an d o f th e idea l beauties, " w e rea d alread y i n th e Thoughts on Imitation. 4S Bu t "noble, " w e shoul d kee p i n mind , i s a ter m taken fro m th e domai n o f morals . "Nobility " belong s t o th e soul , though i t shine s fort h i n bodies . Fro m Plato , Winckelman n learn s tha t the gymnasiu m o f Athen s form s th e background , an d gives u s a n idea , "of th e nobl e soul s o f Gree k youth. " I t wa s i n th e gymnasium , w e remember Winckelman n saying , tha t wer e cultivate d thos e beautifu l 118

Beginnings of the New Age bodies tha t becam e th e paradig m o f idea l beaut y an d tha t wer e a majo r reason fo r makin g Gree k ar t th e clima x o f al l ages . Moralit y become s manifest i n th e gymnasium . "Thei r generou s huma n natur e prevente d the Greek s fro m introducin g bruta l spectacles, " whic h wer e commo n in th e pre-Gree k period . Thi s intimat e connectio n o f moralit y an d formal beaut y make s i t eas y fo r Winckelman n t o sa y tha t Raphae l endowed hi s figures wit h a "nobl e contou r an d a loft y soul, " an d t o claim tha t th e Laocoon manifest s "bodil y anguis h an d mora l greatness." 46 Another featur e tha t shape s th e overal l characte r o f Winckelmann' s thought i s hi s cravin g fo r wholeness , particularl y fo r a harmoniou s relationship betwee n th e individua l an d hi s society . Nowher e doe s h e clearly stat e thi s yearning , o r explai n wha t precisel y i t i s tha t h e yearn s for, bu t w e ca n detec t i t i n hi s historica l imaginatio n an d i n wha t h e projects a s ideal s presente d fo r veneratio n an d imitation . Hi s imag e o f ancient Greec e i s a remedia l projectio n o f Utopia n wis h fulfillment . Th e pervasive longin g fo r wholenes s i n a n absen t realit y i s a n inde x t o a prevailing sens e o f fragmentatio n i n th e present . "Th e concept s o f th e wholeness, o f th e perfectio n i n th e natur e o f Antiquit y wil l clarif y an d make mor e tangibl e th e concept s o f the divisio n i n ou r nature." 4 7 "Ou r time," then , i s the ag e o f divisio n an d fragmentation . Students o f Winckelman n hav e note d tha t muc h o f hi s half-utopia n thought derive s fro m motive s relate d t o th e historica l condition s pre vailing i n hi s time , and thu s implie s a far-reaching socia l criticism . Wha t he perceive s a s lackin g i n hi s ow n world , h e depict s a s presen t i n ancient Greece . Thus , whe n h e claim s tha t i n Greec e "th e thought s o f the whol e peopl e ros e highe r wit h freedom" 48 an d mad e possibl e th e blooming o f art, h e implicitl y point s t o th e reaso n fo r th e declin e o f th e arts i n "ou r time. " In Winckelmann' s Greece , i t shoul d b e emphasized , ar t i s a thor oughly communa l affair . Al l ar t wa s devote d t o th e god s only , an d i t was displaye d solel y i n publi c places . Th e privat e home s o f th e citizen s were characterize d b y "restrain t an d simplicity" ; i n the m ther e wa s n o room fo r art . Thi s stat e o f affair s ha d a direc t impac t o n th e artisti c style. Th e ancien t Gree k artis t wa s no t crampe d b y th e nee d "t o sui t the siz e o f th e dwellin g o r gratif y th e fanc y o f it s proprietor." 49 Th e implied referenc e t o th e cripplin g effec t o f "modern " condition s o n ar t 119

Modern Theories of Art is her e obvious . W e als o perceiv e a n implie d criticis m o f moder n patronage i n Winckelmann' s descriptio n o f ho w work s o f ar t wer e judged i n Greece . The reputatio n an d succes s o f artists wer e no t dependen t upo n th e capric e of ignoranc e an d arrogance , no r wer e thei r work s fashione d t o sui t th e wretched tast e o r th e incompeten t ey e o f a judg e se t u p b y flattery an d fawning; bu t th e wisest of the whol e nation, in the assembly of united Greece , passed judgment upon , and rewarded, the m an d thei r works. 50 This harmoniou s relationshi p betwee n th e artis t an d hi s communit y is th e remed y agains t th e fragmentar y natur e o f th e ar t o f th e moder n world. A thir d featur e i n Winckelmann' s thought , th e final on e w e shoul d like t o mentio n here , i s perhap s th e mos t importan t i n th e presen t context; i t i s hi s concep t o f for m i n great , mainl y Greek , art . Idea l art , Winckelmann believed , a s w e hav e alread y seen , produce d restricted — one coul d say , ascetic—forms . B y thei r ver y nature , thes e form s ar e spiritual. The y hav e a minimu m o f materia l substanc e an d effects . I t i s instructive t o follo w wha t Winckelman n ha s t o sa y i n juxtaposin g th e beauties o f natur e an d o f art . Th e beautie s o f ar t excit e u s les s tha n th e beauties o f nature , an d the y wil l therefor e u be les s pleasin g t o th e uninstructed min d tha n ordinar y prett y fac e whic h i s livel y an d ani mated." Wh y i s thi s so ? Th e answe r implie s muc h o f Winckelmann' s philosophy o f art . The caus e lie s in our passions,whic h wit h most me n ar e excited b y the first look, an d th e sense s ar e alread y gratified, whe n reason , unsatisfied , i s seeking to discove r an d enjo y th e char m o f tru e beauty . I t i s not, then , beaut y whic h captivates us , but sensuality. 51 Such a statemen t mark s a radica l departur e fro m a venerabl e tradi tion. Fo r centuries , ar t theor y ha d educate d reader s t o se e a centra l value o f ar t i n th e picture' s powe r t o arous e th e passions . Th e clai m that i n arousin g th e passion s th e wor k o f a great artis t fall s behin d an y merely prett y fac e i s therefor e surprising . Winckelman n make s thi s statement, on e nee d hardl y emphasize , no t i n orde r t o denigrat e th e value o f art, bu t t o sho w tha t ar t i s of a spiritual rathe r tha n o f a sensual nature. 120

Beginnings of the New Age Because th e natur e o f ar t differ s fro m tha t o f materia l reality , Winckelmann doe s no t conside r th e convincin g imitatio n o f th e latte r an achievemen t o f th e former . Th e discriminatin g reade r o f Winckel mann's writing s wil l notic e tha t ou r autho r doe s no t exto l illusio n a s a summit o f art , an d tha t h e doe s no t tel l th e stories , endlessl y repeate d in th e ar t literatur e o f th e sixteent h an d seventeent h centuries , o f bird s being misle d b y painte d grape s an d mare s neighin g a t painte d horses . A work o f art , h e believes , i s a piec e o f natur e an d o f tangibl e matte r absorbed, a s i t were , int o a spiritua l form . Th e mor e radica l th e absorption, th e pure r an d mor e spiritua l th e form , th e greate r th e art . This attitud e als o emerge s i n hi s appreciatio n o f th e specifi c mean s of artisti c production . Thu s color , fo r centurie s considere d th e embod iment o f sensua l experience , "shoul d hav e bu t littl e shar e i n ou r consideration o f beauty. " Beauty , h e explains , "consists , no t i n color , but i n shape . . . ." S 2 Withi n th e domai n o f line—o r o f "shape, " a s h e here put s it—itself , i t i s th e restricte d tha t ha s th e highe r value . Th e idea o f beaut y "i s lik e a n essenc e extracte d fro m matte r b y fire." Whe n beauty i s embodied i n a n imag e o f a human figure—the grea t them e o f Greek a r t — " t h e form s o f suc h a figure ar e simpl e an d flowing." Al l beauty, h e goe s o n t o say , "i s heightene d b y unit y an d simplicity. " Summing u p hi s view s o n th e simplicit y o f beaut y an d form , h e use s a musical comparison . "Th e harmon y whic h ravishe s th e sou l doe s no t consist i n arpeggios , an d tire d an d slurre d notes , bu t i n simple , long drawn tones." 5 3 A present-da y student , tryin g t o translat e Winckelmann' s tex t an d images int o a moder n conceptiona l idiom , canno t hel p thinkin g o f "abstraction." Needles s t o say , "abstraction " her e shoul d no t b e take n in it s terminologica l precision . Th e specifi c image s an d idea s ou r autho r had i n min d ar e no t precisel y th e sam e a s thos e tha t hav e occupie d th e minds o f twentieth-centur y artist s an d writers . Bu t hi s longin g fo r restraint, simplicity , an d purit y necessaril y lead s t o wha t w e woul d today cal l an abstrac t form . Th e gospel o f abstraction tha t Winckelman n preached t o hi s contemporarie s wa s perhap s th e mos t importan t legac y he bequeathe d t o ar t theor y o f th e moder n age .

I2 I

Modern Theories of Art III. D I D E R O T I. AR T THEOR Y AN D AR T CRITICIS M

The upheava l tha t shoo k reflectio n o n paintin g an d sculptur e i n th e middle o f th e eighteent h centur y ha d man y consequences . On e wa s th e final splinterin g o f th e art-theoretica l treatise . Th e traditiona l shap e fo r presenting though t o n ar t ha d bee n th e systemati c treatise . Establishe d in th e earl y stage s o f th e Renaissance , thi s literar y for m flourished fo r centuries. Th e treatis e commonl y combine d a n analytica l descriptio n o f the "parts " (o r othe r categories ) o f paintin g (mor e rarel y als o o f sculpture), wit h prescriptions , usuall y couche d i n genera l terms , fo r what wa s considere d goo d art , an d proposal s fo r wha t th e artis t shoul d represent an d ho w h e shoul d proceed . Th e comprehensiv e treatise , though ofte n threatene d b y othe r form s o f presentation , survive d throughout th e seventeent h century . Lat e i n tha t perio d i t wa s stil l magnificently represente d b y Gerar d d e Lairesse' s Le grand livre de peintres, which w e considere d i n th e previou s chapter. 54 I n th e eigh teenth century , thi s typ e o f presentatio n rapidl y dwindle d i n signifi cance, an d afte r th e middl e o f th e centur y i t practicall y disappeare d a s a centra l literar y for m fo r th e instructio n o f artist s o r th e interpretatio n of ar t fo r a broa d public . A variet y o f literar y form s wer e no w takin g the plac e o f th e systemati c treatise , amon g the m th e histor y o f a perio d (such a s Winckelmann' s History of Ancient Art), individua l lectures , an d so on . Thes e form s als o include d ar t criticism . What ar t criticis m i s an d ho w i t ca n b e distinguishe d fro m othe r approaches t o ar t i s a matte r tha t ha s no t gon e unnotice d i n moder n scholarly literature, 55 thoug h certainl y muc h remain s t o b e done . W e shall no t her e undertak e a definitio n o f ar t criticis m o r a n outlin e o f it s problems. I shal l simpl y presum e tha t everyon e know s wha t ar t criti cism is . I n th e followin g observations , I shal l b e concerne d wit h onl y one aspec t o f th e subject : i n wha t wa y th e emergin g ar t criticis m wa s able t o mak e a substantial contributio n t o ar t theory . Before w e attemp t a surve y o f th e relationshi p betwee n th e tw o fields i n th e middl e o f th e eighteent h century , particularl y i n th e wor k I 22

Beginnings of the New Age of Diderot , i t ma y b e helpfu l t o not e briefl y tw o area s i n whic h ar t criticism an d ar t theor y radicall y diffe r fro m eac h other . Th e first poin t is th e concer n with , o r th e attitud e to , th e individua l wor k o f art . T o many moder n readers , i t ma y see m surprising , bu t i t ca n hardl y b e doubted, tha t traditiona l ar t theory , geare d a s i t wa s t o influenc e artist s in thei r work , ha d littl e us e fo r th e individua l paintin g o r statue . T o b e sure, individua l work s o f ar t ar e ofte n mentione d i n th e treatises , sometimes eve n discusse d a t length ; ye t th e primar y contex t o f th e discussion i s invariably provide d b y som e broade r problem , a theoretica l theme suc h a s a particula r "part " o f painting . Th e conceptual , ofte n altogether abstract , characte r o f th e theme s s o presente d i s commo n i n art theor y an d prevail s whethe r th e autho r o f th e treatis e i s a literar y scholar o r a practicin g artist . T o tak e a strikin g example , Leonardo' s observations obviousl y attes t t o a uniqu e familiarit y wit h th e makin g o f a wor k o f art ; the y carr y th e flavor o f hi s persona l imagination . Ye t h e does no t discus s a t an y lengt h th e specifi c painting s h e ha s actuall y see n (as oppose d t o hi s vision s o f picture s no t ye t painted) . Th e theme s h e treats, suc h a s color , light , movement , anatomy , expression , o r perspec tive, ar e o f a general, conceptua l nature. 56 Whe n traditiona l ar t theor y speaks o f a n individua l paintin g o r sculpture , th e wor k i s treate d a s a n illustration o f a genera l ide a rathe r tha n a s a full , autonomou s subjec t of a discussion. Thi s i s true eve n i n th e rar e case s whe n a whole treatis e is devote d t o a singl e wor k o f art . Whe n i n th e sixteent h centur y Francesco Bocch i take s Donatello' s St. George a s a poin t o f departure , he treat s i t a s a n exampl e o f depictin g characte r an d emotio n i n sculpture. 57 Th e sam e i s tru e fo r Giovann i Pietr o Bellori' s treatmen t o f Raphael's painting s i n th e Loggia. 58 Th e seventeenth-centur y schola r and presiden t o f th e Roma n Academ y o f Ar t see s i n thes e paint ings a mode l fo r th e painter' s treatmen t o f subjec t matte r an d applica tion o f idea l forms . Throughou t tha t tradition , i t ca n thu s b e said , th e individual wor k o f ar t remain s a n illustratio n o f genera l principle s rather tha n th e uniqu e produc t o f a n individua l artist' s imaginatio n an d skill. Art criticism , o n th e othe r hand , i s essentiall y oriente d toward s th e individual wor k o f art . Tha t i t i s no t completel y detache d fro m genera l 123

Modern Theories of Art ideas nee d hardl y b e stressed . Eve n withou t goin g int o th e philosophica l problem o f th e individual— a thorn y proble m indeed , an d on e tha t ha s occupied th e mind s o f thinkers fo r centuries—w e intuitivel y gras p tha t one canno t approac h a n individua l wor k o f ar t withou t drawin g o n broad categorie s tha t g o fa r beyon d th e uniqu e piec e tha t i s presented . Once th e beholde r react s t o wha t h e see s b y saying mor e tha n jus t " I like" o r " I don' t like, " h e i s indulgin g i n som e kin d o f ar t theory . Whenever h e trie s t o explai n wha t make s hi m prais e o r rejec t a wor k of art , h e engage s i n ar t theory . I t ma y b e crud e an d primitive , bu t theory i t is . I t i s essentia l t o note , however , tha t i n actua l ar t criticism , as w e kno w it , th e general , theoretica l concept s an d categorie s usuall y remain implicit , o r ar e onl y lightly , marginall y referre d to ; the y neve r become th e primar y subjec t o f th e ar t critic' s discussion . The tota l dependenc e o f ar t criticis m o n th e individua l wor k o f ar t has produce d som e strikin g historica l an d literar y expressions . I t i s interesting t o notic e tha t ar t criticis m wa s actuall y th e twi n siste r o f th e art exhibition , itsel f equally base d o n th e concep t o f th e individua l wor k of art . Ar t theory , on e i s no t surprise d t o find, di d no t hav e th e intellectual mean s o f dealin g wit h th e ar t exhibition . I t simpl y di d no t record th e "Salon. " Wer e w e t o confin e ourselve s t o th e purel y ar t theoretical writing s o f th e eighteent h an d nineteent h centuries , w e would suppos e tha t th e ar t exhibitio n ha d neve r com e int o being . In literar y form , ar t criticis m i s als o determine d b y th e individua l work o f ar t o r a n assemble d grou p o f suc h works . Inheren t i n th e literary form , therefore , i s a certai n fragmentar y character . A s oppose d to th e systemati c treatise , th e presentatio n o f criticis m is , lik e Pascal' s great work , "achev e pa r so n inachevement. " I t doe s no t hav e a struc ture o f it s ow n o r hav e it s ow n problems . I t i s th e individua l wor k o f art, presen t her e an d now , tha t gives ar t criticis m it s direction , raise s its problems , an d determine s it s structure . A simila r situatio n obtain s wit h regar d t o th e secon d are a i n whic h art theor y an d ar t criticis m see m t o diffe r radically . Thi s concern s wha t is considere d th e mos t typica l featur e o f th e whol e critica l activity — the vappraisa l an d evaluatio n o f th e wor k o f art . Wha t th e audienc e expects o f th e ar t criti c is , first o f all, th e passin g o f judgment. Crudel y 124

Beginnings of the New Age put, ar t criticis m i s generall y understoo d a s th e discriminatio n o f th e good fro m th e poor . The passin g o f judgmen t i s no t alie n t o traditiona l ar t theory . Fro m Alberti an d Lomazz o t o Dubo s an d Gerar d d e Lairesse , writer s an d teachers o f ar t theor y passe d judgment s o n work s o f art , evaluate d paintings an d statues , painter s an d sculptors . In th e cours e o f th e seventeenth an d eighteent h centuries , particularl y i n th e though t prev alent i n th e ar t academies , th e judgin g o f artists—and , t o a lesse r extent, o f individua l work s o f art—became s o institutionalize d tha t th e judgments themselve s coul d b e cas t i n numerica l patterns . Th e artist s of th e pas t go t marks , th e ultimat e achievemen t o f judging. O n a scal e of 20 , L e Bru n (who , incidentally , obtaine d th e highes t score ) go t a 1 6 in line , i n composition , an d i n expression , bu t a mer e 8 in color ; Dure r got onl y 1 0 i n lin e a s wel l a s i n color , bu t eve n less , a n 8 , i n bot h composition an d expression. 59 Should w e therefor e conclud e that , a t leas t wit h regar d t o passin g judgment, ther e i s n o differenc e betwee n ar t theor y an d ar t criticism ? On th e contrary , her e th e differenc e betwee n the m become s eve n mor e strikingly manifest . Firs t w e shoul d remembe r tha t i n ar t theor y judg ment wa s agai n a mean s o f illustration . I t i s therefor e no t surprisin g that i n classica l ar t theor y th e objec t judge d i s a master' s styl e rathe r than on e o f hi s individua l works . Moreover , component s an d aspect s are appraised , suc h a s line , color , composition , expression , an d s o on . In singlin g ou t on e aspect , on e particula r element , th e organi c unit y i s torn apart , i n a profoun d sens e i t i s transforme d int o a n abstraction . From thi s poin t o f view , an d overstatin g th e case , w e coul d clai m tha t the objec t judge d b y ar t theor y i s a "nonobject. " For ar t criticism , th e passin g o f judgment doe s no t serve , a t leas t no t directly an d manifestly , an y additional , "higher " purpose . Th e wor k singled ou t a s eithe r goo d o r ba d i s no t mean t t o lea d u s furthe r tha n the livel y encounte r betwee n th e spectato r an d th e wor k i n fron t o f him. The wor k o f ar t i s not analyticall y tor n apart , n o aspec t o r elemen t is separated fro m th e intricat e we b tha t constitute s th e uniqu e wor k o f art. Th e wor k i s experience d i n it s totality , thoug h tha t totalit y ma y sometimes see m t o b e a n irrationa l one . '2£

Modern Theories of Art Now le t u s com e bac k t o th e startin g poin t o f thes e sketch y com ments, an d ask : ho w ca n ar t criticis m mak e a significant contributio n t o the theor y o f art ? Diderot' s wor k a s a criti c ma y yiel d a n answer . I n trying t o understan d wha t h e say s abou t painting , le t m e repeat , 1 shall consider onl y wha t ma y b e pertinen t t o ar t theory . 2. DIDEROT : SPONTANEIT Y AN D MORALIT Y

One nee d hardl y stres s tha t Deni s Didero t (1713—1784 ) was much mor e than a critic . Fe w figures i n eighteenth-centur y though t wer e a s many sided a s Diderot , an d few , on e shoul d add , s o clearl y announc e th e coming o f th e moder n ag e a s h e did . " A strikin g an d appealin g figure, learned, talkative , energetic , changeable , inventive , sensual , an d elusive , Diderot embodie s th e dualis m o f th e Enlightenmen t t o perfection : a partisan o f empiricis m an d scientifi c method , a sceptic, a tireles s exper imenter an d innovator , Didero t wa s possesse d b y th e restlessnes s o f modern man"—thi s i s ho w on e moder n historia n ha s describe d him. 60 His man y activitie s include d ar t criticism . Diderot' s concer n wit h ar t and th e philosophica l problem s i t pose s bega n early . Mainl y i n hi s Lettre sur les aveugles (Letter on the Blind) (1749), bu t eve n i n earlie r writings , w e already find idea s tha t for m th e beginnin g o f a concep t o f art . Fro m 17 £9 he contribute d note s o n th e biennia l Salo n t o th e collection s o f hi s friend, th e German-Parisia n ma n o f letter s Friedric h Grimm . I n 176 ^ he attached t o thes e note s a short Essay on Tainting (Essai sur la peinture). His exhibition review s (th e "Salons, " as the y ar e no w commonl y called ) ca n unhesitatingly b e claime d t o constitut e th e beginnin g o f ar t criticis m a s a literar y genre . The y naturall y tel l u s muc h abou t th e view s o n ar t tha t were held , a t leas t i n certai n circles , i n th e i7£o s an d 1760s . Thes e writings, togethe r wit h som e o f th e materia l containe d i n th e Encyclopedic (of whic h Didero t wa s a principa l editor) , mak e i t possibl e fo r u s t o picture hi s though t o n ou r subjec t an d t o spea k o f hi s contributio n t o art theory . It i s characteristi c o f Didero t tha t h e doe s no t presen t hi s idea s i n systematic fashion . Fo r us , however , i t ma y b e usefu l t o procee d fro m the genera l t o th e specific , stressin g th e unit y i n hi s thought , althoug h it ma y b e hidde n rathe r tha n openl y demonstrated . I n hi s treatmen t o f 126

Beginnings of the New Age the broades t problem , beauty , on e alread y sense s wher e th e mai n emphasis i s placed . Th e articl e o n Beaut y (Beau), originally writte n fo r the Encyclopedic bu t publishe d separatel y i n Amsterda m i n 1772 , displays Diderot's leanings . H e distinguishe s betwee n differen t kind s o f beauty : absolute, real , an d perceived . Whil e h e doe s no t den y th e existenc e o f Absolute Beauty , hi s majo r concer n i s wit h perceive d Beauty , fo r h e cannot conceiv e eve n th e metaphysica l proble m o f Beaut y excep t i n relation t o th e perso n experiencin g it. 61 Diderot's contributio n t o th e theor y o f ar t (th e ter m no w take n i n a more precis e sense ) doe s no t consis t i n an y definit e bod y o f teachings , in a "doctrine. " A s I hav e said , h e wa s to o impulsiv e an d passionat e a thinker t o presen t a balanced , consisten t doctrine . Hi s majo r contribu tion lie s i n raisin g certai n problem s an d articulatin g certai n attitudes . Some o f thes e problem s ar e stil l ver y muc h wit h us . Throug h raisin g them, an d makin g the m a centra l matte r o f ar t discussion , Didero t becomes a rea l founde r o f th e moder n age . The artist' s spontaneit y wa s a persisten t an d centra l concer n o f Diderot's thought . Spontaneit y showe d hi m man y faces . On e o f the m i s the sketch . Didero t i s amon g th e earlies t critics , no t themselve s artists , to appreciat e an d lov e th e sketc h an d t o prais e i t a s a n ar t for m i n it s own right . Wh y i s h e s o attracte d t o th e sketch ? Precisel y becaus e th e sketch show s th e painter' s spontaneit y i n a pure form . Thu s h e explain s in th e Salo n o f 17 6 c: A sketch i s generally mor e spirite d tha n a picture . I t i s th e artist' s wor k when h e i s ful l o f inspiratio n an d ardor , whe n reflectio n ha s tone d dow n nothing, i t i s th e artist' s sou l expressin g itsel f freel y o n th e canvas . Hi s pe n and skillfu l penci l seem s t o spor t an d play ; a fe w stroke s expres s th e rapi d fancy, an d th e mor e vaguel y ar t embodie s itsel f th e mor e roo m i s ther e fo r the play of the imagination. 62 This i s certainl y a surprisin g attitude , an d a statemen t tha t migh t well hav e bee n mad e i n th e twentiet h century . Another valu e o f th e sketc h i s tha t i t allow s th e spectato r t o partici pate, a s i t were , i n th e shapin g o f wha t h e see s i n th e picture . Speakin g of the differenc e betwee n a sketch an d a finished painting , Didero t says : "in th e latte r th e subjec t i s full y worke d ou t fo r u s t o loo k at ; i n th e 127

Modern Theories of Art former I can imagin e s o man y thing s whic h ar e onl y suggested." 63 Th e desire t o activat e th e beholde r i s another moder n element , an d i t point s in th e sam e directio n tha t ca n b e sense d i n Diderot' s earl y articl e o n The Beautiful , whic h ha d stresse d th e perceiver' s role . The Academ y o f Ar t constrict s th e artist' s freedo m an d spontaneity . While th e youn g artis t i s acquirin g traditiona l form s an d motifs , "th e truth o f natur e i s forgotten ; th e imaginatio n i s cramme d wit h actions , positions, an d form s tha t ar e false, prepared , ridiculous , an d cold. " Eve n if th e conventiona l form s constitutin g traditio n ar e no t directl y force d upon th e artist , i t wil l b e difficul t fo r hi m t o get ri d o f them . "The y ar e in stoc k there , an d wil l com e fort h t o ge t fixed o n th e canvas . Ever y time th e artis t take s u p pencil s o r brush , thes e dul l ghost s wil l awak e and appea r befor e him . . . ." 6 4 The Academ y i s a representativ e o f societ y i n general . Patronage , s o Diderot seem s t o vie w it , i s alway s a constrain t o n th e artist' s freedom : society impose s limitation s o n hi m an d imperil s hi s very creativity . "Fo r Diderot th e artist' s inne r freedo m i s th e impulsive , unaccountabl e flow of th e penci l an d brush , o f image s an d ideas ; verve , enthusiasm , spon taneity an d naturalnes s ar e it s outwar d signs . Withou t tha t flow ther e is n o authenti c art." 6 5 Meye r Schapir o ha s pointe d ou t tha t i n thes e views Didero t ma y hav e bee n influence d b y Longinus , th e literar y criti c of th e thir d centur y A.D. , wh o live d unde r Roma n imperia l rul e an d who als o praise d enthusias m an d imaginatio n a s th e ver y origin s o f art . Longinus denounce d th e debasemen t o f art i n hi s own tim e an d society , and sa w th e reaso n fo r thi s i n th e lov e of money, luxury , an d pleasure. 66 In th e eighteent h century , Longinu s wa s popula r amon g writer s an d intellectuals, an d Didero t ma y wel l hav e draw n fro m him . Howeve r that ma y be , i n th e moder n ag e Didero t i s amon g th e first critic s t o forcefully juxtapos e th e artis t an d society , an d t o conside r societ y a s oppressive an d restrictive . Oppressive traditio n an d constrainin g societ y d o no t remai n merel y in th e genera l backgroun d o f th e artist' s lif e an d personality . The y ar e represented withi n th e proces s o f artistic creatio n itself . I t i s the "rules " and, t o a lesse r extent , "th e model " tha t embod y thes e constrictin g powers. Thi s vie w o f artisti c rule s ma y explai n Diderot' s passionat e denial o f them . Th e studen t wil l remembe r tha t th e debat e o n th e 128

Beginnings of the New Age nature an d statu s o f rule s i n ar t ha s a lon g history . I n th e lat e sixteent h century, Giordan o Bruno' s attac k o n rule s i n ar t mark s th e en d o f a great period , an d indicate s a profoun d crisi s i n th e lif e an d ar t o f th e time. 67 A centur y later , th e ver y foundation s o f th e Academ y o f Ar t were shake n b y Roge r d e Piles' s questionin g o f th e regies assurees. 68 I n al l these historica l movement s rejectin g a dominan t styl e an d establish ment, "rule " wa s juxtapose d agains t genius . I n hi s lat e Pensees detachees sur la peinture, Didero t follow s thi s example : ' T h e rule s hav e mad e o f art a routine, an d I do no t kno w whethe r the y hav e bee n mor e harmfu l than useful . Le t u s pu t i t squarely : th e rule s hav e helpe d th e ordinar y man, the y hav e injure d th e ma n o f genius." 69 An d somewher e els e h e tells o f th e youn g artis t who , "befor e touchin g th e leas t strok e t o hi s canvas, woul d fal l o n hi s knee s an d an d say , 'Lord , delive r m e fro m th e model.'" 7 0 Criticism, too , can becom e a representative o f the "rules, " sometime s trying t o deriv e it s authorit y fro m geniu s itself . I be g Aristotle' s pardon , bu t i t i s a viciou s sor t o f criticis m t o deduc e exclusive rule s fro m th e mos t perfec t works , as if the mean s of pleasing wer e not infinite . Geniu s ca n infring e almos t an y o f thes e law s wit h success . I t i s true tha t th e troup e of slaves, while admiring, cry sacrilege. 71 Just a s th e tyrann y o f rule s ha s a hardenin g effec t o n th e artist' s spontaneous imagination , s o als o doe s i t dul l th e spectator' s experience . The criti c wh o rigorousl y applie s aestheti c rule s interpose s himsel f between th e wor k o f ar t an d th e amateu r lookin g a t it . "Wha t a stupi d occupation i t i s to tr y ceaselessl y t o kee p u s fro m feelin g pleasure , o r t o make u s blus h becaus e o f th e pleasur e w e hav e take n i n something — that i s the occupatio n o f th e critic." 72 These statements , wit h al l thei r rebelliou s ton e an d surprisingl y modern ring , shoul d no t mislea d us , however : Didero t wa s no t a romantic, no r di d h e hav e an y consisten t worl d vie w tha t woul d mak e of hi m a full-fledge d citize n o f ou r ow n day . I woul d lik e t o illustrat e the othe r sid e o f Diderot , hi s link s wit h traditiona l classicism , b y a brie f discussion o f his views on artisti c imaginatio n an d o n th e moral functio n of th e wor k o f art . We hav e becom e use d t o viewin g th e artist' s imaginatio n a s th e 129

Modern Theories of Art creative agent , an d i t i s thu s interestin g t o observ e wha t imaginatio n means t o Diderot . H e understand s i t mainl y a s th e facult y o f recallin g images o r th e appearance s o f objects . I t presuppose s memory , an d ha s a special affinit y wit h visua l experience . Alread y i n hi s earl y Letter on the Blind, For the Use of Those Who See, h e say s tha t imaginatio n present s t o th e mind picture s an d stream s o f pictures . Bu t thes e picture s ar e no t created ou t o f nothing . The y ar e a distillatio n o f previou s impressions . This i s tru e eve n fo r th e mos t famou s work s o f art . I n hi s Essay on Tainting, attache d t o th e Salo n o f 17 6 c, w e read : Michelangelo gav e th e mos t perfec t for m possibl e t o th e dom e o f St . Peters. . . . Wha t wa s i t tha t inspire d thi s curv e rathe r tha n a n infinit y o f others tha t h e migh t hav e chosen ? Day-to-da y experienc e o f life . . . . 73 In general , s o w e lear n fro m hi s note s o n th e Salo n o f 1767 , th e artis t creates nothin g (i f tha t wor d i s take n i n a precis e sense) ; h e onl y imitates, composes , combines , exaggerates , enlarge s upon , an d dimin ishes variou s part s o f nature . Here , on e almos t believe s onesel f t o b e listening t o St . Augustin e claimin g tha t th e "creatur e canno t create, " o r to Thoma s Aquina s stressin g tha t al l th e artis t ca n d o i s chang e a shape , but no t inven t o r creat e anything.

74

The artist' s expressio n o f emotion s i s als o base d o n hi s abilit y t o recall wha t h e saw ; i t doe s no t involv e hi s ow n emotions . Liste n t o what Didero t say s i n hi s lat e composition , th e Paradox on Acting, writte n between 177 3

an

d ! 778,

on

Davi d Garrick :

What I am goin g t o tel l yo u no w i s something I witnessed myself . Garrick pu t hi s hea d throug h th e ga p betwee n tw o leave s o f a door , an d i n the spac e o f fou r o r hve second s hi s face d passe d successivel y fro m wil d jo y to moderat e joy , fro m jo y t o composure , fro m composur e t o surprise , fro m surprise t o astonishment , fro m astonishmen t t o sadness , fro m sadnes s t o gloom, fro m gloo m t o fright , fro m frigh t t o horror , fro m horro r t o despair , and the n bac k agai n fro m thi s final stag e u p t o th e on e fro m whic h h e started . Was hi s sou l capabl e o f feelin g al l thos e sensation s an d o f collaboratin g wit h his fac e i n th e playin g o f tha t scale , a s i t were ? I don't believ e i t fo r a moment , and neither you. do 75 130

Beginnings of the New Age It wa s onl y i n th e nineteent h centur y tha t th e theor y o f th e sincer e artist, revivin g th e ol d Horatia n vie w i n a moder n version , becam e popular. Even mor e surprisin g i s wha t Didero t ha s t o sa y abou t th e moralit y of art . H e like s Greuze , s o h e write s i n hi s Salo n o f 1763 , because hi s work "i s a paintin g wit h a moral." 76 "T o mak e virtu e desirable , vic e odious, an d absurditie s evident , tha t i s th e ai m o f ever y hones t ma n who take s u p th e pen , th e brush , o r th e chisel, " h e write s tw o year s later i n hi s Essay on Painting. 11 And, on e pag e earlier , h e ha d sai d tha t "there i s on e thin g tha t paintin g an d poetr y hav e i n common : the y should bot h b e moral. " Morality, intimatel y connecte d wit h expression , become s a yardstic k for judgin g th e valu e o f picture s an d styles . Explainin g wha t composi tion is , he writes : Composition i s ordinaril y divide d int o th e picturesqu e an d th e expressive . For m y part , I care no t a jot ho w wel l th e artis t ha s dispose d hi s figures in order t o achieve striking light effects i f the work a s a whole does not spea k t o my heart , i f th e character s i n th e paintin g ar e simpl y standin g abou t lik e people ignorin g on e anothe r i n a publi c par k o r lik e animal s a t th e foo t o f a landscape painter's mountains. 78 Is thi s th e sam e autho r wh o praise s Chardin' s stil l life s fo r thei r power t o revea l th e beautie s an d mysterie s o f visua l experienc e i n th e insignificant object s h e represents ? Speakin g o f a small Chardi n stil l life , Diderot says , "I f I wante d m y chil d t o b e a painter , thi s i s th e paintin g I shoul d buy . 'Cop y this, ' I shoul d sa y t o th e child , 'Cop y i t again. ' " 7 9 And i n th e Salo n o f 176^ , i n fron t o f anothe r pictur e representin g a subject o f n o consequence , Didero t exclaims : "Oh , Chardin , yo u ar e just i n tim e t o restor e th e us e o f my eye s to m e afte r th e morta l injurie s inflicted o n the m b y your colleagu e Challe." 80 Yet i t i s th e sam e Diderot—i n fact , i n th e ver y sam e review—wh o passionately criticize s Bouche r fo r hi s immoral , indecen t pictures . Th e immorality o f th e painting s diminishe s thei r aestheti c value . Boucher , he believes , ha s n o ide a o f th e moralit y o f art . " I woul d no t scrupl e t o say t o Boucher, " Didero t write s i n th e Essay on Tainting, "If you r wor k 131

Modern Theories of Art is neve r intende d fo r anyon e bu t smutty-minde d eighteen-year-olds , then yo u ar e quit e right , m y friend ; g o o n paintin g you r breast s an d bottoms. . . ." 8 1 Thi s heav y emphasi s o n morality—naturall y a moralit y of subject matter—mislead s Didero t i n hi s judgments. Wit h th e advan tage o f hindsight , w e ca n no w see tha t thank s t o thi s moralisti c dogmatism h e rejecte d artist s wh o hav e withstoo d th e tes t o f time , among the m Bouche r an d Watteau , an d embrace d other s whos e name s have bee n totall y forgotten . Bu t hi s emphasi s o n th e moralit y o f th e work o f ar t als o endow s th e artis t wit h a n aur a tha t goe s fa r beyon d that o f providin g aestheti c pleasure . Th e artis t become s th e mouthpiec e for humanity . "O n th e doo r o f th e painter' s studio, " s o w e rea d i n th e Essay on Fainting, "there shoul d b e a n inscription : 'Her e th e wretche d find eye s tha t wee p fo r them. ' " 8 2 Can th e tw o side s o f Didero t b e reconciled ? I doub t it . On e canno t make o f hi m a consistent , systemati c thinke r whos e doctrin e i s fre e from contradictions . Bu t i n hi s unsystematic , ye t passionate , wa y h e articulated problem s tha t impresse d themselve s profoundl y o n th e mod ern age .

IV. REYNOLD S The generatio n tha t lai d th e foundation s fo r th e ne w ag e i n theoretica l reflection o n th e visua l art s cam e t o a n en d wit h a n artis t wh o i n man y respects differe d fro m th e archaeologists , historians , an d philospher s w e have discusse d s o far . Thi s i s Si r Joshua Reynold s (1723—1792) , perhap s the mos t importan t figure i n th e histor y o f Britis h painting , th e firs t president o f th e newl y establishe d Roya l Academ y i n London . H e wa s celebrated i n hi s time , th e first o f th e "learne d artists " i n England . Hi s patrons include d th e Englis h court , th e aristocracy , an d me n suc h a s Samuel Johnso n an d Davi d Garrick . Indeed , sinc e Bernini' s deat h n o artist ha d occupie d a positio n o f simila r socia l estee m an d fame . Reynolds pronounce d hi s view s o n ar t i n th e cours e o f th e presiden tial addresse s h e gave t o th e Academ y a t th e prize-awardin g celebration s held ever y secon d year . Th e first an d secon d discourses , wer e delivere d in 1769 , onl y a fe w month s afte r Winckelmann' s deat h an d whil e 132

Beginnings of the New Age Diderot's Salons wer e stil l bein g published ; h e gav e hi s las t i n 1790 , a t the ver y beginnin g o f th e ag e o f Romanticism . As th e presiden t o f th e Roya l Academ y o f Art , Reynolds—rathe r like Anto n Raphae l Mengs—hel d a traditiona l vie w o f painting , an d advocated a n ar t o f a kin d tha t w e no w cal l "academic. " I t wa s hi s expressed intentio n t o clin g t o tradition , an d t o transmi t it s content s t o the younge r generation , ' i t i s th e principa l advantag e o f a n Academy, " he sai d i n hi s openin g address , "that , beside s furnishin g abl e me n t o direct th e student , i t wil l b e a repositor y fo r th e grea t example s o f th e Art." 8 3 Wha t h e mainl y ha d i n min d wa s "obedience " t o wha t th e great example s ca n teac h us . I would chiefl y recommend , tha t a n implici t obedienc e t o th e Rules of Art, as established b y th e practic e o f th e great masters , shoul d b e extracte d fro m the young students. That thos e models, which hav e passed throug h th e appro bation o f ages , should b e considere d b y the m a s perfect an d infallibl e guides ; as subjects fo r thei r imitation , not thei r criticism. 84 In hi s explanation s o f ar t an d o f th e artist' s job , Reynolds , then , di d not wan t t o offe r nove l departures ; hi s ai m wa s t o secur e fo r th e futur e the accepte d an d prove n models . Nevertheless , on e finds i n hi s doctrin e much tha t doe s no t directl y ensu e fro m th e idea s an d pattern s h e s o ardently wishe d t o follow . I t i s ne w emphases , rathe r tha n ne w ideas , that sometime s mak e o f Reynold s a borderlin e figure, on e w h o — possibly agains t hi s ow n will—announce d th e comin g o f a ne w age . I n approaching hi s Discourses, i t woul d b e wron g t o expec t a philosopher' s consistency an d disciplin e o f thought . Th e view s sometime s vary , th e formulations ar e no t alway s full y clear . Th e reade r familia r wit h Italia n art literatur e bot h o f th e Renaissanc e an d th e Baroque , an d wit h seventeenth-century Frenc h doctrines , wil l find commo n view s an d common theme s o n ever y pag e o f th e Discourses. Ye t throug h thes e ver y weaknesses, Reynolds' s addresse s becom e a faithfu l mirro r o f wha t wa s going on , subterraneously , a s i t were , i n intellectua l attitude s t o ar t i n the las t thir d o f th e eighteent h century . I t i s thi s propert y tha t make s the Discourses a documen t s o preciou s t o th e historia n o f ar t an d ideas . In th e followin g pages , I shall concentrat e mainl y o n th e idea s i n th e Discourses tha t sugges t th e risin g significanc e o f ne w themes . Reynold s 133

Modern Theories of Art himself woul d probabl y no t hav e agree d tha t h e wa s departin g fro m tradition. Th e moder n reader , however , wit h th e advantag e o f hind sight, i s i n a goo d positio n t o discriminat e betwee n wha t Reynold s merely repeate d an d wha t h e actuall y transformed . At th e cente r o f Reynolds' s though t on e finds, a s ca n b e expected , the ide a o f imitation . No r i s one surprise d a t hi s distinguishin g betwee n two kind s o f imitation , calle d "copying " an d "borrowing. " Unde r different names , th e separatio n o f thes e tw o type s i s well atteste d i n ar t theory a t leas t sinc e th e sixteent h century. 85 Mer e copying , Reynold s believes, i s harmfu l t o th e youn g artist . I n th e first yea r o f hi s tenur e o f the presidenc y o f th e Roya l Academy , h e issue d thi s warning : I conside r genera l copyin g a s a delusiv e kin d o f industry ; th e student satisfies himsel f wit h th e appearanc e o f doin g something ; h e fall s int o th e dangerous habi t o f imitatin g withou t selecting , an d o f labourin g withou t an y determinate object ; a s i t require s n o effor t o f th e mind , h e sleep s ove r hi s work; an d thos e power s o f inventio n an d compositio n whic h ough t particu larly t o b e calle d out , an d pu t i n action , li e torpid , an d los e thei r energ y fo r want o f exercise. 86 As oppose d t o mer e copying , "borrowing " consist s o f incorporation , adaptation, an d digestio n o f differen t motif s an d pattern s take n fro m the work s o f differen t artist s an d differen t periods . "Th e artist s o f al l times an d i n al l place s shoul d b e employe d i n layin g u p material s fo r the exercis e o f hi s [th e student's ] art, " w e rea d i n th e ver y titl e o f th e second discourse , hel d i n Decembe r 1769 . "Th e sagaciou s imitator " borrows. 87 These notion s wer e o f cours e commonplac e i n th e secon d hal f o f th e eighteenth century . Ye t on e perceive s a certai n insecurit y i n Reynolds' s tone i n presentin g thes e generall y accepte d truths . A competito r t o imitation ha s arisen ; i t i s imagination . Followin g th e sequenc e o f th e Discourses, w e ca n perceiv e th e chang e i n attitude . I n th e sixt h discourse , delivered i n 1774 , n e deplore s th e fashionabl e tren d toward s replacin g imitation b y inspiration . Those who have undertaken t o write on our art , and hav e represented i t as a kind o f inspiration, as a gift bestowe d upo n peculiar favourite s a t their birth , seem t o insur e a muc h mor e favourabl e dispositio n fro m thei r readers , an d '34

Beginnings of the New Age have a muc h mor e captivatin g an d libera l air , tha n h e wh o attempt s t o examine, coldly , whethe r ther e ar e an y mean s b y whic h thi s ar t ma y b e acquired.88 It i s acquired , needles s t o say , b y imitation . Moreover , "ou r art , being intrinsicall y imitative , reject s thi s ide a o f inspiration , mor e per haps tha n an y other." 8 9 No w Reynold s sing s th e prais e o f imitation : "by imitatio n only , variety , an d eve n originalit y o f invention , i s pro duced. I will go further ; eve n genius , a t leas t wha t generall y i s so called , is the chil d o f imitation." 90 By th e tim e Reynold s delivere d hi s thirteent h discourse , onl y twelv e years later , som e far-reachin g change s see m t o hav e take n place . Now , in 1786 , th e presiden t o f th e Roya l Academ y declare s i n th e ver y titl e of hi s address : "Ar t no t merel y Imitation , bu t unde r th e Directio n o f Imagination. I n wha t Manne r Poetry , Painting , Acting , Gardening , an d Architecture depar t fro m Nature. " Durin g th e 1770 s an d 1780s , a s James Engel l ha s pointe d out , concer n wit h th e imaginatio n increased , and wa s providin g a theoretica l backin g an d philosophica l foundatio n for th e growing interes t i n psychology. 91 Th e thirteent h discours e show s how stron g a n impac t thi s recen t concer n ha d o n th e theor y o f painting . Reynolds a t thi s poin t downgrade s reaso n a s a measur e o f art . I t i s imagination tha t shoul d infor m th e artist' s action s an d guid e hi m i n hi s work. Awar e o f th e novelt y o f hi s claim , h e als o sense d opposition . Addressing a n audienc e o f youn g artists , h e explained : This i s sometimes th e effec t o f wha t I mean t o cautio n yo u against ; tha t i s to say , a n unfounde d distrus t o f th e imaginatio n an d feeling , i n favou r o f narrow, partial, confined, argumentativ e theories. 92 This i s no t t o sa y tha t trut h t o natur e i s to b e abandoned . Allegianc e to th e principl e o f verisimilitud e ha s no t changed . Th e questio n i s onl y how t o achiev e trut h t o nature . No w Reynold s believe s tha t th e roa d t o this cherished goa l doe s no t lea d throug h th e land o f geometrical axiom s or anatomica l studies , bu t rathe r throug h tha t o f th e imagination . "Fo r though i t ma y appea r bol d t o say, " th e presiden t proclaims , "th e imagination i s here th e residenc e o f truth." 9 3 It woul d b e futil e t o ente r a critica l argumen t a s t o wha t precisel y imagination mean t t o Reynolds , an d whenc e i t dre w it s images . Rey '3£

Modern Theories of Art nolds i s no t a systemati c philosopher , an d perfec t consistenc y i s no t hi s prime concern . Followin g th e mai n line s o f hi s thought , however , on e concludes tha t h e understand s imaginatio n les s a s a creativ e forc e tha t produces image s ou t o f nothin g than , t o us e Diirer' s formulation , a s a n "accumulated, secre t treasur e i n one' s heart." 94 W e carr y i n ou r min d impressions tha t ar e "th e resul t o f th e accumulate d experienc e o f ou r whole life. " Reynold s eve n speak s o f th e "mas s o f collectiv e observa tion." Th e artist' s "animate d thoughts, " h e says , follo w "no t perhap s from capric e o r rashnes s . . . bu t fro m th e fulnes s o f hi s mind. " Th e legitimacy o f th e imaginatio n i s secure d b y it s origi n i n rea l life . "I t i s our happines s tha t w e ar e abl e t o dra w o n suc h funds. " Th e idea s issuing fro m th e artist' s min d "ar e infuse d int o hi s design , withou t an y conscious effort." 95 Imagination produce s a ne w reality , howeve r w e ma y defin e it , an d that reality , Reynold s declares , differ s fro m wha t w e experienc e i n everyday life . What , then , abou t imitation ? Our element s [h e says ] ar e lai d i n gros s commo n nature,—a n exac t imitation befor e us : but whe n w e advance to the higher state, we consider this power o f imitation , thoug h first i n th e orde r o f acquisition , a s b y n o mean s the highest i n the scale of perfection. 96 The ide a tha t idealizatio n o f form s lead s u s awa y fro m a precis e representation o f everyda y experienc e i s as old a s Aristotle's Poetics. I t i s remarkable, however , that , wit h th e advancin g t o a "highe r state, " Reynolds drop s imitatio n altogether . On e coul d perhap s believ e tha t this i s onl y a sli p o f th e pen , o r perhap s stil l anothe r obscurit y i n hi s terminology. Bu t i n th e observation s tha t follo w th e reade r finds furthe r support fo r a superseding o f imitatio n b y a new kin d o f reality produce d by art . Reynolds first turn s t o th e othe r arts . Poetr y "set s ou t wit h a language i n th e highes t degre e artificial , a constructio n o f measure d words, suc h a s neve r is , no r eve r wa s use d b y man." 9 7 Th e theater , "which i s sai d t o hol d th e mirro r u p t o nature, " als o produce s a n imaginary reality . T o mistak e "Garrick' s representatio n o f a scen e i n Hamlet fo r reality " i s ignoran t praise . "Th e meri t an d excellenc e o f Shakespeare, an d o f Garrick , whe n the y wer e engage d i n suc h scenes , is of a differen t an d muc h highe r kind." 98 Turnin g t o wha t wa s probabl y ,36

Beginnings of the New Age the mos t recentl y acknowledge d art , landscap e gardening , h e say s tha t "as fa r a s gardenin g i s a n art , o r entitle d t o tha t appeallation , i t i s a deviation fro m nature. " Implicitl y referrin g t o th e ideolog y o f wha t i s everywhere calle d th e Englis h Garden , h e continues : "fo r i f th e tru e taste consists , a s man y hold , i n banishin g ever y appearanc e o f art , o r any trace s o f th e footstep s o f man , i t woul d the n b e n o longe r a garden." 99 Al l th e arts , then , sho w tha t the y brin g abou t a realit y tha t differs fro m th e natura l one . Imagination , howeve r understood , i s th e handle, a s i t were , b y whic h th e new , artificia l realit y i s brough t about ; it infuse s int o tha t realit y it s ow n character . Making imaginatio n th e centra l concep t indicate s a dispositio n tha t pervades th e philosoph y o f ar t a s a whole . I n fact , th e sam e motive s that le d Reynold s t o tur n imaginatio n int o wha t i t i s i n hi s theor y als o made hi m se e th e ar t o f earlie r periods , th e trend s an d mode s o f representation, i n a new light . Thi s i s best epitomize d i n th e compariso n of Raphae l an d Michelangelo , an d hi s worshi p o f Michelangelo . Comparisons o f th e relativ e statur e o f Raphae l an d Michelangel o ha d been commo n i n discussion s o n ar t sinc e th e sixteent h century . Th e results o f thi s comparin g an d respectiv e scalin g often tel l u s much abou t the perio d indulgin g i n th e pastime . A t leas t sinc e th e mid-seventeent h century, th e superiorit y o f Raphael' s ar t an d styl e ha d becom e a matte r of cardina l significance , almos t a n articl e o f faith , fo r th e though t promoted an d proclaime d i n th e academie s o f art . Raphael' s styl e cam e to b e th e ultimat e authorit y an d sourc e o f th e legitimac y o f th e acad emies' teaching . Believin g i n Raphael' s superiorit y was , then , mor e tha n a matte r o f taste ; i t becam e th e defens e o f th e academi c traditio n against whateve r migh t endange r it . Fo r reason s w e nee d no t analyz e here, Michelangelo' s ar t wa s considere d les s easil y imitabl e an d stand ardizable. Thoug h nobod y woul d den y hi s genius , h e wa s fel t t o b e a kind o f explosive force , endangerin g th e continuit y o f the tradition . Th e case of Raphae l versu s Michelangelo , a s the Academ y sa w it , was lucidl y summed u p b y Frear t d e Chambray . Raphael Urbino, th e most excellen t o f the Modern Painters , and universally so reported b y thos e o f th e Profession, i s the Person whose Works I shall propos e a s so man y Demonstrations o f th e absolut e necessit y o f exactl y observin g th e Principles which we have established in this Treatise. An d on the contrary, Michael Angelo, superior i n Fame, but fa r inferio r t o hi m i n Merits, shall b y hi s 137

Modern Theories of Art extravagant Compositions, ampl y furnish u s to discover the Ignorance an d Temerity of thos e Libertines, who , tramplin g al l th e Rules an d Maximes unde r thei r feet , pursue only their ow n Caprices. ,0° Even Roge r d e Piles , a t th e tur n o f th e centur y considere d a rebe l who conquere d th e Academ y i n th e nam e o f color , th e nonrrationa l element, wrot e o f Michelangelo : His Attitudes are , for th e most part , disagreeable , the Airs o f his Heads fierce, his Draperies no t ope n enough , and hi s Expressions no t ver y natural; yet, as wild as his productions are , there i s Elevation i n his Thoughts. . . ,101 By 1790 , whe n Reynold s delivere d hi s las t addres s t o th e Roya l Academy, a grea t chang e ha d take n place . Thi s las t discours e wa s devoted t o Michelangelo . The concludin g remar k ha s often bee n quoted . I feel a self-congratulation i n knowin g myself capable o f such sensation s as he intende d t o excite . I reflect, no t withou t vanity , tha t thes e discourse s bea r testimony o f my admiration o f that trul y divin e man; and I should desir e tha t the las t word s whic h I shoul d pronounc e i n thi s Academy , an d fro m thi s place, might b e the name of—Michael Angelo. 102 What doe s thi s worshi p o f Michelangel o mea n fo r th e theor y o f art ? What doe s i t tel l u s abou t th e processe s takin g plac e beneat h th e surface, a s i t were ? Admiration fo r Michelangelo , i t ha s bee n said , correctly , wa s a n admiration o f "subjective " art . I t involve d th e admiratio n o f the creativ e power an d th e expressiv e forc e o f genius , o f dept h o f feelin g an d o f stormy passions . I t wa s thes e "subjective " qualitie s tha t fascinate d Reynolds, an d i t wa s natura l fo r hi m t o discus s the m i n th e contex t o f the familia r compariso n o f Raphae l an d Michelangelo . Raphael , th e president o f th e Roya l Academ y knew , ha d mor e tast e an d fancy , Michelangelo mor e geniu s an d imagination . Th e one , h e said , excelle d in beauty , th e othe r i n energy . Tw o qualitie s particularl y ar e embodie d in Michelangelo' s work , i n Reynolds ' view , an d the y ar e bot h o f crucia l significance fo r th e furthe r histor y o f an y reflectio n o n painting . Rey nolds himself , i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind , doe s no t stat e hi s idea s o n these qualitie s a s clearl y a s w e dar e t o presen t the m here . A carefu l reader, however , will no t fai l t o detec t the m i n th e tex t o f the Discourses. The first i s wha t woul d toda y b e calle d th e artist' s "originality. " 138

Beginnings of the New Age Reynolds begin s b y describing Michelangelo' s work s a s having " a strong , peculiar, an d marke d character.' ' Thi s assertio n o f cours e reiterate s what ha d bee n sai d countles s time s abou t th e wor k o f th e "divin e artist." Bu t Reynold s i s no t conten t wit h thi s piec e o f traditiona l characterization; h e goe s o n t o sa y tha t thes e work s "see m t o procee d from hi s min d entirely , an d tha t min d s o ric h an d abundant , tha t h e never needed , o r seeme d t o disdain , t o loo k abroa d fo r foreig n help." 1 0 3 Here, i t seems , Reynold s implicitl y make s tw o relate d claims : (i) tha t Michelangelo i s th e ultimat e origi n o f hi s work , that—i n a precis e sense o f th e w o r d — h e i s thei r "creator; " an d (2 ) tha t Michelangel o breaks wit h tradition , hi s min d bein g s o ric h an d abundan t tha t h e never neede d t o loo k fo r "foreig n help. " Wha t i s "foreig n help " bu t what traditio n provide s i n th e wa y o f motifs , patterns , an d themes ? Today w e kno w o f cours e tha t Michelangel o wa s no t a s independen t o f traditional motif s a s th e presiden t o f th e Roya l Academ y believe d hi m to be . Ye t i n ou r presen t contex t i t i s crucia l tha t Reynold s believe d i n Michelangelo's autonomy . Thi s independenc e o f traditio n i s see n a s a sign o f genius . Raphael' s materials , Reynold s say s o n th e sam e page , "are generall y borrowed, " wherea s Michelangelo' s figures, images , an d shapes follo w fro m hi s uniqu e mind . I n hi s discussio n o f Michelangelo , Reynolds preache s th e gospe l o f th e individua l artist , a n ide a tha t wa s to play suc h a n overwhelmin g par t i n nineteenth-centur y thought . The othe r qualit y embodie d i n Michelangelo' s wor k i s "greatness. " The reade r her e clearl y perceive s th e idea s on th e Sublime , so importan t in th e literar y criticis m an d philosophica l though t o f th e time , penetrat ing int o reflectio n o n painting . Wha t precisel y suc h greatnes s migh t b e Reynolds doe s no t tel l us . Th e metaphor s h e use s i n describin g i t (suc h as "vehemence, " "heat, " "vas t an d sublime, " an d s o on ) als o d o no t help th e reader . Tha t i t i s shee r greatness , ineffabl e i n it s essence , i s perhaps bes t indicate d b y what Reynold s say s about ho w Michelangelo' s works impres s th e beholder . "Th e effec t o f th e capita l work s o f Michae l Angelo perfectl y correspond s t o wha t Bouchardo n sai d h e fel t fro m reading Homer ; hi s whol e fram e appeare d t o himsel f t o b e enlarged , and al l natur e whic h surrounde d him , diminishe d t o atoms." 104 Ineffable greatness , b y it s ver y nature , i s har d t o fi t int o th e artisti c and conceptua l pattern s o f tradition . Thi s i s mad e clear , again , i n th e comparison o f Raphae l an d Michelangelo . Nobod y excelle d Raphael , i39

Modern Theories of Art our autho r says , i n th e judgmen t tha t unite s hi s ow n observation s o f nature, th e energ y o f Michelangelo , an d th e "beaut y an d simplicit y o f the antique. " "Bu t if , a s Longinu s thinks , th e sublime , bein g th e highes t excellence tha t huma n compositio n ca n attai n to , abundantl y compen sates th e absenc e o f ever y othe r beauty , an d atone s fo r al l othe r def iciencies, the n Michae l Angel o demand s th e preference." 105 Beneath th e surfac e o f a classicizin g academicism , an d a n allegianc e to Raphae l a s it s patro n saint , on e perceive s th e approachin g upheava l of Romanticis m tha t wa s t o overtur n accepte d norm s an d i n th e en d lead t o questionin g th e ver y validit y o f traditio n i n th e domai n o f art . This i s th e ultimat e significanc e o f wha t th e presiden t o f th e Roya l Academy ha d t o sa y abou t Michelangelo . Th e worshi p o f Michelangel o became a disruptiv e forc e place d a t th e ver y foundation s o f th e defens e of traditio n i n art .

NOTES 1. Fo r th e biographical , an d intellectual , interrelationshi p o f th e tw o men , se e th e still unsurpasse d broa d representatio n b y Car l Justi , Winckelmann und seine Zeitgenossen, 3 vols. (3r d ed. ; Leipzig , 1923) . 2. Se e Opere di Antonio Rafaello Mengs, Primo pittore della Maesta Carlo 111, re di Spagna, ec. ec. ec, Publicate da D. Giuseppe Niccola d'Azara, 2 vols . (Parma , 1780) . Fo r Mengs's ar t theory , se e Monik a Sutter , Die kunsttheoretischen Begnjfe des Malerphilosophen Anton Raphael Mengs (Munich , 1968) . 3. Fo r Mengs' s view s o f th e painte r a s philosopher , cf . Sutter , Die Kunsttheoretischen Begriffe, pp . 19 0 ff . 4. Se e Opere di Antonio Rajfaele Mengs (Rome , 1787) , II , p. 294 ; also Kar l Borinski , II , Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie (Leipzig , 1924) , p . 214 . 5. Thi s divisio n i s common . Fo r a particularl y importan t example , se e Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann, pp . 27 3 ff . 6. Poetics 1448a, her e quote d i n Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts, trans . S . H . Butcher, 4t h ed . (Ne w York , 1951) , p . 214 . 7. Se e Winckelmann' s "Sendschreibe n iibe r di e Gedanke n vo n de r Nachahmun g der griechischen Werk e i n de r Malere i un d Bildhauerkunst. " I use th e editio n o f Winckelmann's Werke, ed . C . L . Ferno w (Dresden , 1808) , I , p. 94 . 8. I a m usin g th e origina l Germa n editio n o f Winckelmann' s collecte d works : Winckelmann's Werke, ed. C . L . Fernow , 1 1 vols . (Dresden-Berlin , 1808-1820) . The first eigh t volume s appeare d i n 1801 . Th e origina l Germa n o f The History of 140

Beginnings of the New Age Ancient Art I a m quotin g fro m th e Phaido n edition : J . Winckelmann , Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums (Vienna , 1934) . Ther e i s no complet e Englis h translatio n o f Winckelmann's works . Part s o f th e Thoughts on the Imitation ar e translate d i n Elizabeth Holt , A Documentary History of Art, I I (Garde n City , N . Y. , 1958) , pp . 336-351. Ther e i s a n Englis h translatio n b y G . Henr y Lodg e o f The History of Ancient Art (Boston, 1860) , i n tw o volumes . Whereve r possible , I have use d thes e translations. I n som e cases , I have change d th e wordin g t o mak e i t mor e closel y conform t o th e origina l version . 9. Winckelmann , Werke, I , p . 7 . Th e translatio n o f tha t sentenc e i n Holt , p . 337 , i s slightly different . I t reads : "T o tak e th e ancient s fo r model s i s ou r onl y wa y t o become great , yes , unsurpassabl e i f w e can. " Th e origina l reads : "De r einzig e Weg fii r uns , gross , ja , wen n e s mdglic h ist , unnachahmlic h z u werden , is t di e Nachahmung de r Alten . " The ter m "inimitable " (unnachahmlich), o f course , als o means "unsurpassable, " a s th e Hol t translatio n ha s it , bu t i t carrie s a particula r tension i n a sentence devote d t o imitation . 10. Winckelmann , I , p . 20 ; Holt, II , p. 343 . 11. Wilhel m Waetzoldt , Deutsche Kunsthistoriker, I, Von Sandrart bis Rumohr (Leipzig, 1921), p . 68 . 12. Winckelmann , I . p . 34 ; Holt , II , p . 350 . Franchezza, it shoul d b e noted , wa s already i n th e seventeent h centur y a technica l ter m accepte d i n th e workshops . Baldinucci, i n hi s Vocabolario Toscano delTarte del disegno (Florence , 1681 ; reprinte d Florence, n.d.) , p . 64 , describe s franchezzaa s Ardimento, bravura, Tesser franco. 13. Winckelmann , I , p. 6 ; Holt , II , p. 337 . 14. Fo r Piranes i i n th e intellectua l settin g o f eighteenth-centur y Rome , cf . Henr i Focillon, G. B. Piranesi (Paris , 1928) . 15. Winckelmann , I , p.6; Holt , II , p. 337 . 16. Se e Waetzoldt , Deutsche Kunsthistoriker, I , p . 56 . 17. Winckelmann' s paganis m ha s been frequentl y discussed . I n English, se e especiall y Henry Hatfield , Aesthetic Paganism in German Literature (Cambridge , Mass. , 1964) , Chapter I . An d se e als o E . M . Butler , The Tyranny of Greece over Germany (Boston , 1958; originally publishe d i n Cambridge , 1935) , pp . 9-48 . 18. I n hi s Plan d'une universite pour le gouvernement de Kussie, in J . Asseza t an d M . Tourneaux, eds. , Denis Diderot: Oeuvres completes (Paris , 1875-1877) , III , p . 447 . And se e Pete r Gay , The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (Ne w York , 1977) , pp . 94 , 72. 19. Se e Voltaire' s Essai sur les moeurs, i n Oeuvres completes, ed . L . Molan d (1877-1885) , I, p. 89 . 20. Fo r th e meanin g o f silenc e i n Wincklemann' s thought , se e especiall y Walte r Rehm, Gbtterstille und Gottertrauer (Bern , 1951 ) pp . 101-182 . 21. Fo r a brie f surve y o f th e origin s o f th e ter m "classical, " se e Enrs t Rober t Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Ne w York , 1953) , p . 249 . 22. Se e th e interestin g discussio n i n Walte r Rehm , Griechentum und Goethezeit, (Le ipzig, 1936 , p . 2 9 ff . 23. I n European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, pp. 25 6 ff .

141

Modern Theories of Art 24. Fo r th e importanc e Winckelman n accorde d t o stayin g i n Rome , se e th e ver y detailed treatmen t b y Kar l Justi , Winckelmann und seine Zeitgenossen, especially Vol. II . 25. Th e ter m "Vermogen " used b y Winckelmann coul d als o mean "beyon d hi s means of reproduction. " 26. Th e notio n o f "imitation " ha s o f cours e bee n discusse d countles s times . Fo r a survey o f th e mai n meaning s o f th e ter m i n th e sixteent h century , se e Eugeni o Battisti, "I I concett o d'imitazion e ne l Cinquecent o italiano, " i n th e author' s Rinascimento e barocco (n . p. , I960) , pp . 175-215 . 27. Winckelmann , I , p. 20 ; Holt, p . 343 . 28. I a m her e followin g mainl y Thoma s Greene , The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (Ne w Have n an d London , 1982) , pp . 4 2 ff . 29. Thi s h e wrot e i n a n introductio n ("Erinnerun g iibe r di e Betrachtun g de r Werk e der Kunst" ) t o a collectio n o f hi s shor t paper s o n ancien t art . Se e Werke, I, pp . 241 ff . Th e sentenc e quote d i s o n p . 245 . 30. Werke, I, p . 22 . Th e translatio n o f thi s particula r sentenc e i n Holt , p . 344 , i s insufficient an d possibl y misleading . I have therefor e substitute d a revised trans lation. 31. Se e J. Winckelmann , Geschichte der Kunst des Ahertums (Vienna , 1934 ) (hencefort h to b e cite d a s Geschichte) p . 139 ; and th e Englis h translatio n b y G . Henr y Lodg e History of Ancient Art (Boston, 1860 ) (hencefort h cite d a s History), II, p. 28 . 32. Geschichte, p . 150 ; History, II, p. 42 . 33. Geschichte, p . 150 ; History, p. 41 . 34. Werke I , p. 35 ; Holt, p . 351 . 35. Se e Fran z Schultz , Klassik und Romantik der Deutschen, (Stuttgart , 1959) , I , p . 104 . 36. Ibid. , pp.10 4 ff . 37. Werke I , p. 31 ; Holt, p . 349 . 38. History, II, p. 113 . 39. Geschichte, p . 139 ; History, II, p. 28 . 40. Fo r thi s Platonic , o r Plotinian , vie w tha t Winckelman n take s a s a matte r o f course, man y quotation s coul d b e adduced . See , fo r example , Geschichte, p . 149 ; History, II, p. 40 . 41. Geschichte, p . 164 ; History, II, pp . 42 , 113 . 42. Geschichte, p . 168 ; History, II, p. 129 . 43. Geschichte, p . 168 ; History, II, p. 129 . 44. Geschichte, p . 155 ; History, II, p. 47 . 45. Werke I , p . 24 . Th e translatio n o f thi s sentenc e i n Hol t i s somewhat garbled . 46. Fo r al l th e quotation s i n thi s passage , se e Werke, I. pp . 13-31 ; Holt , pp . 3 4 0 349. 47. Werke, I, p . 22 ; Holt, p . 344 . 48. Geschichte, p . 133 ; History, II, p . 14 . I t i s interestin g t o not e tha t i n th e Thoughts on Imitation, Winckelman n mention s th e sam e reason s fo r th e superiorit y o f Greek ar t tha t h e adduce s i n th e History (climate, physica l constitution , exercise , etc.)—with th e exceptio n o f th e socia l aspec t ("freedom") . I n the earlie r work ,

l42

Beginnings of the New Age he speak s onl y o f "th e humanit y o f th e Greek s that , i n it s bloomin g freedom , prevented the m fro m introducin g bruta l spectacles. " Se e Werke, I , p . 15 . 49. Geschichte, p . 137 ; History, II, p. 14 . Th e criticis m o f privat e patronag e anticipate s Romantic, an d eve n nineteenth-century , attitudes . I t belong s t o th e underlyin g stratum o f socia l criticism . 50. Geschichte, p . 135 ; History, II, p. 18 . 51. Geschichte, p . 140 ; History, II, p. 31 . 52. Geschichte, p . 148 ; History, II. 38 . 53. Geschichte, p . 150 ; History, II, pp. 4 0 - 4 1 . 54. Se e above , pp . 5 7 ff . 55. Cf . Alber t Dresdner , Die Entstehung der Kunstkritk im Zusammenhang der Geschichte des europaischen Kunstlebens (Munich , 1915) . An d se e als o Lionell o Venturi , History of Art Criticism (Ne w York , 1936 ; reprinted Ne w York , 1964) . 56. Fo r Leonardo , se e Theories of Art, I , pp . 13 2 ff. , an d th e literatur e mentione d there. 57. Se e m y stud y "Characte r an d Physiognomy : Bocc h o n Donatello' s St. George. A Renaissance Tex t o n Expressio n i n Art, " Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (1975) : 413-430. 58. Giovann i Bellori , Descrizzioni delle imagini dipinti da Rqffaelle d'Urbino nelle camere del Palazzo Vaticano (Rome , 1695) . Cf . Theories of Art, pp . 31 5 ff . 59. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 34 0 ff . 60. Se e Pete r Gay , The Enlightenment, An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism (New York , 1977) , pp . 4 7 ff . Th e literatur e o n Didero t i s o f cours e ver y large , though on e stil l misse s a careful comprehensiv e presentatio n o f hi s view s o n th e visual arts . Bu t cf . Franci s Coleman , The Aesthetic Thought of the French Enlightenment (Pittsburgh , 1971 ) an d Erns t Cassirer , The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Princeton, 1951) . Dresdner' s Die Entstehung der Kunstkritik im Zusammenhang der Geschichte des europaischen Kunstlebens, especially Chapte r VI , ha s goo d observa tions. 61. Se e hi s "Recherche s philosophique s su r Porigin e e t l a natur e d u beau, " i n Diderot's Oeuvres esthetiques, ed . Pau l Vernier e (Paris , 1968) , pp . 39 1 ff. , p . 402 . Excerpts appea r i n Diderot's Selected Writings, translated b y Dere k Coltma n (Ne w York an d London , 1966) , pp . 51-60 . 62. I us e th e Englis h translation , don e b y Creighto n Gilbert , availabl e i n Elizabet h Holt, A Documentary History of Art, (Garde n City , N.Y. , 1958) , II , p . 316 . Fo r th e French text , se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, pp . 54 2 ff . Fo r a brie f surve y o f th e sketch i n Frenc h painting , cf . Alber t Boime , The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1971) , pp . 8 2 ff . 63. Holt , II , p. 316 ; Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 544 . 64. Thes e quotation s ar e take n fro m Diderot' s Essay on Painting. Agai n I use Creigh ton Gilbert' s translatio n i n Holt , A Documentary History of Art, II , p . 313 . Fo r th e French text , se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 670 . 65. Se e Meye r Schapiro , "Didero t o n th e Artis t an d Society, " Diderot Studies V (1964): 5-11 . Th e sentence s quote d ar e o n p . 5 .

143

Modern Theories of Art 66. Thi s i s foun d mainl y i n th e las t chapte r o f Longinus' s On the Sublime. 67. Se e Erwi n Panofsky , Idea: A Concept in Art Theory (Ne w York , 1968) , pp . 7 3 ff . 68. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 34 9 ff. , 35 2 ff . 69. Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, pp . 75 3 f . 70. Fro m th e Essay on Painting, i n Holt , A Documentary History of Art, II , p . 313 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 670 . 71. A not e i n th e Pensees detachees sur la peinture. Se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 753. I us e th e translatio n o f th e passag e appearin g i n Franci s Coleman , The Aesthetic Thought of the French Enlightenment, p . 88 . 72. Anothe r fragmentar y statemen t i n th e Pensees detachees. Se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 758 . 73. Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 738 . I am usin g th e Englis h translatio n b y Coleman , The Aesthetic Thought of the French Enlightenment, p . 114 . 74. Fo r a brie f indicatio n o f wha t Augustin e an d Thoma s Aquina s though t abou t th e problem o f th e creativ e artist , se e Theories of Art, pp . 8 6 ff . 75. Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 328 . Fo r an Englis h translation , se e Diderot's Selected Writings, p. 325 . Th e Paradox on Acting was writte n i n 1769 , afte r Didero t ha d already compose d al l hi s writing s o n painting . 76. Se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 524 . I n the Eloge de Richardson, Didero t ground s the majo r par t o f hi s prais e o f Richardso n i n th e mora l purpor t o f hi s fiction. Cf. Coleman , The Aesthetic Thought of the French Enlightenment, pp . 13 0 (f. 11. Se e Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 164 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 718 . 78. Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 165 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 719 . 79. Thi s Didero t wrot e i n th e Salo n o f 1763 . Se e Diderot's Selected Writings, p. 150 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 483 . 80. Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 485 ; Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 154 . 81. Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 163 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 717 . 82. Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 164 ; Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, p . 718 . 83. Si r Joshua Reynolds , Fifteen Discourses Delivered in The Royal Academy (Londo n an d New York : Everyman' s Library , n.d.) , p . 5 (hereafter cite d a s Discourses). 84. Discourses, p . 6 . 85. Th e mos t articulate d formulatio n o f th e tw o type s o f imitatio n i s foun d i n Vincenzio Danti' s / / primo libro del trattato delle perfette proporzioni di tutte le cose che imitare e ritrarre si possono con I'arte del disegno, no w bes t availabl e i n Paol a Barocchi , ed., Trattati d'arte del cinquecento, I (Bari, 1960) , pp . 209-269 . An d se e Theories of Art, pp . 22 8 ff. , wit h additiona l literature . 86. Discourses, p . 17 . 87. Ibid. , p . 86 . 88. Ibid. , p . 76 . 89. Ibid. , p . 77 . 90. Ibid. , p . 78-79 . 91. Jame s Engell , The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment and Romanticism (Cambridge , Mass., 1981) , pp . 18 4 ff . 92. Discourses, p . 210 .

144

Beginnings of the New Age 93. Ibid. , p . 209 . 94. Fo r th e Dure r quotation , se e Theories of Art, p . 218 . 95. Discourses, pp . 209-210 . 96. Ibid. , pp . 213-214 . 97. Ibid. , p . 214 . 98. Ibid. , p . 219 . 99. Ibid. , p . 221 . Th e concer n o f Englis h though t i n th e eighteent h centur y wit h gardening a s a n ar t for m i s o f cours e wel l known . Fro m th e larg e literature , I shall mentio n onl y Mari e Louis e Goithein , A History of Garden Art (Ne w York , 1979; th e origina l Germa n editio n appeare d a s earl y a s 1926) , an d H . R . Clark , The English Landscape Garden (New York , 1980) . Shaftesbur y seem s t o hav e bee n the first t o stres s th e basi c contras t betwee n "tailored " gardens an d untouche d nature. 100. Se e Frear t d e Chambray , Prefac e t o An Idea of the Perfection of Painting, translated J[ohn] E[velyn ] (London, 1668) . An d cf . Samue l H . Monk , The Sublime: A Study of Critical Theories in XVM-Century England (Ann Arbor , Mich. , 1962 ; first edition , 1935), pp . 168.ff . 101. Roge r d e Piles , The Art of Painting and the Lives of Painters (London , 1706) , pp . 16 0 ff. An d se e Monk , The Sublime, p . 172 . Se e als o Theories of Art, pp . 35 2 ff . 102. Discourses, pp . 263-264 . 103. Ibid. , p . 67 . 104. Ibid. , pp . 66-67 . 105. Ibid. , pp . 6 8 - 6 9 .

HS

3

Unity an d Diversit y o f the Visua l Art s

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N That th e nineteent h centur y i s a comple x historica l period , combinin g contraries, mergin g continuin g tradition s an d radica l changes , i s a truism tha t doe s no t requir e furthe r elaboration . Thi s general character ization o f th e age—th e perio d beginnin g wit h th e sixtie s o r seventie s of th e eighteent h centur y an d leadin g u p t o th e traumati c upheava l o f the first Worl d Wa r i n th e twentieth—i s als o vali d fo r th e domai n o f our reflections . A s nee d hardl y b e said , thi s wa s th e perio d o f th e museums, th e grea t publi c collections , tha t popularize d a veneratio n o f past achievement , a s wel l a s o f "new " an d revolutionar y movement s both i n th e livin g art s an d i n observation s o n wha t th e pas t ha d created . Conflicting attitude s an d current s o f though t followe d on e anothe r an d existed sid e b y side , wer e linke d t o eac h othe r i n successio n an d i n simulataneous existence . Amon g th e man y facet s reflectin g thi s contra diction o f opposite s i s also th e theor y o f art . In theoretica l reflection s o n art , tw o ver y differen t attitude s com e t o the fore . O n th e on e hand , w e ma y clai m tha t talkin g abou t "ar t a s such," ar t i n th e moder n sens e o f tha t term , i s a n inventio n o f th e 146

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts eighteenth centur y tha t reache d it s ful l realizatio n i n th e nineteenth . Not onl y wa s th e ter m "aesthetics " coine d i n th e eighteent h century , but it s ver y subjec t matter , th e "philosoph y o f art, " wa s invente d a t that time . I n th e vie w o f som e historians , i t ca n indee d b e applie d t o the though t o f earlie r period s onl y wit h certai n reservations . Som e scholars a t leas t hav e observe d tha t ar t wit h a capita l A, an d i n it s modern sense , originate d i n th e eighteent h century , an d it s dept h an d possibilities wer e explore d i n th e cours e o f th e nineteenth . Wha t i s i t that a poem an d a picture, a musical piec e and a statue hav e in common , although th e medi a i n whic h the y ar e cast , th e materia l natur e o f th e products, diffe r s o widely ? Thi s i s a questio n aske d i n th e nineteent h century. Th e notio n o f "Fin e Arts, " or , i n th e origina l French , "Beau x arts," denotin g th e visua l arts—architecture , sculpture , painting , an d the relate d mino r arts—i s als o a creatio n o f tha t time , an d i t wa s th e nineteenth centur y tha t mad e thi s notio n a cornerston e o f th e critica l and theoretica l vocabular y use d i n discussion s o f art . As oppose d t o thi s universalizin g trend , whic h strov e t o unif y th e various arts , th e nineteent h centur y evince d a profoun d an d lastin g interest i n th e specifi c an d uniqu e natur e o f eac h ar t an d th e materia l medium i n whic h i t operated . Instea d o f asking wha t musi c an d paintin g may hav e i n common , i t wa s aske d ho w the y diffe r fro m eac h other , and wha t i s th e uniqu e mediu m o f each . T o mak e th e uniquenes s o f each ar t mor e manifest , attentio n wa s ofte n focuse d o n th e materia l nature o f th e wor k an d th e wa y i t i s perceived b y the spectator . A great deal o f though t an d observatio n wer e devote d t o th e questio n o f whether th e specifi c wor k o f ar t "exists " i n a tim e sequenc e o r i n spatial simultaneity . A poe m an d a sonat a exis t i n tempora l sequence , word afte r wor d an d ton e afte r tone ; a paintin g an d probabl y als o a statue, exis t i n a timeles s simultaneity : the y displa y thei r comple x structure a t a singl e glance . Eve n mor e importan t tha n th e "dimensio n of being " tha t i s th e prope r contex t o f a given ar t o r wor k o f ar t i s th e sense t o whic h i t appeal s an d b y whic h i t i s perceived . W e obviousl y perceive musi c b y a different sens e tha n w e perceiv e painting , bu t wha t of poetr y an d sculpture ? Th e apportionin g o f eac h individua l ar t t o a different domai n o f sens e perceptio n wa s o f cours e a powerfu l suppor t in seein g tha t ar t a s unique , a s profoundl y differin g fro m al l th e others . 147

Modern Theories of Art At th e sam e time , however , i t reveale d thi s art' s link s wit h a broa d realm o f perception , an d thu s mad e possibl e a ne w an d muc h deepe r understanding o f th e mediu m an d o f it s characte r an d significanc e fo r the complete d wor k o f art . Th e associatio n o f eac h ar t wit h a differen t domain o f sense perceptio n als o illustrates ho w though t abou t ar t i n th e last tw o centurie s wa s intimatel y linked—thoug h i n ways widel y differ ing fro m thos e accepte d i n th e Renaissance—t o th e sciences , an d thi s attitude sometime s influence d artisti c developmen t itself . The particularizin g tren d di d no t enjo y th e goo d fortun e o f th e universalizing one . A s a rule , philosopher s di d no t tak e u p wha t wa s said i n th e discussion s o f thi s o r th e othe r individua l art , an d th e literature rea d b y a wide r audienc e remaine d les s awar e o f th e link s between a specifi c artisti c mediu m an d a specifi c sens e tha n o f idea s about th e element s commo n t o al l th e arts . S o fa r a s 1 know, th e stor y of thes e reflection s ha s neve r bee n tol d i n detail . I shall therefor e begi n this chapte r wit h a fe w earl y opinion s expressin g th e particularizin g attitude. The historia n considerin g tha t lon g perio d betwee n th e 1760 s an d 1914, betwee n Herde r o r Schlegel , o n th e on e hand , an d Rieg l o r Kandinsky, o n th e other , mus t as k himsel f ho w th e tw o attitude s wer e related. Di d th e spokesme n o f on e tren d simpl y ignor e wha t th e othe r had t o say , o r di d som e kin d o f dialogu e develo p betwee n them ? On e cannot avoi d asking , moreover , wha t wa s th e impac t o f th e ver y existence an d articulatio n o f th e tw o attitude s o n th e arts , o n aestheti c thought, an d o n genera l culture . Th e cor e questio n i s probably this : di d the pola r juxtapositio n o f universa l an d particula r remai n th e las t word , or wa s ther e rathe r a n attemp t t o brin g th e variou s art s int o on e comprehensive structur e withou t disregarding , eve n fo r methodologica l reasons, th e basi c materia l an d sensua l difference s o f thei r medi a an d o f the pattern s o f experiencin g thei r products ? The aestheti c though t o f th e nineteent h centur y ha s bee n discusse d often an d thoroughly . Usually , however , thi s ha s bee n don e o n a n elevated philosophica l level , an d th e question s her e outlined , question s much close r t o th e actua l art s tha n t o purel y philosophica l speculation , have no t bee n systematicall y investigated . I t ma y therefor e b e wort h 148

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts our whil e t o stud y th e developmen t o f thes e particula r problem s i n some selec t and , I hope, representativ e examples .

I. LESSIN G

Lessing ha s bee n terme d " a radical. " Many a modern reader , acquainte d with Lessin g a s on e o f th e classica l author s wh o ar e beyon d criticism , will wonde r ho w a write r thu s venerate d coul d hav e bee n involve d i n the up s an d down s o f radicalism . Ye t th e studen t wh o goe s throug h Lessing's polemica l writing s wit h care , attentiv e bot h t o th e view s expressed an d t o th e ton e i n whic h the y ar e presented , ca n wel l understand ho w suc h a characterizatio n coul d hav e com e about . "Bot h in ton e an d i n intention, " i t ha s bee n said, 1 "Lessing' s writing s ar e always a challenge , par t o f a dramati c dialogu e wit h a rea l o r imagine d opponent." Bu t Lessin g wa s a radica l no t onl y i n ton e an d intention ; the historica l impac t o f hi s radicalis m wa s tha t th e intellectua l an d artistic scen e h e lef t behin d hi m wa s i n man y way s profoundl y differen t from th e on e h e entere d upon . On e o f th e aspect s o f thi s revolutionar y impact pertain s directl y t o th e subjec t matte r o f th e presen t chapter . We mus t begi n b y remindin g ourselve s o f som e o f th e chie f charac teristics o f th e histor y o f aestheti c reflectio n befor e Lessing . Fo r thre e centuries th e assumptio n tha t a basi c parallelis m prevaile d betwee n poetry an d painting , betwee n th e literar y an d th e visua l arts, was almos t an articl e o f faith . Eve r since , i n th e fifteenth century , Italia n humanis m revived th e ancien t saying—attribute d b y Plutarc h t o th e half-legen dary poe t Simonides—tha t paintin g i s a mut e poetry , poetr y a loqua cious painting , thi s ide a o f a clos e interrelationship , o r eve n a hidde n identity, o f th e variou s art s wa s asserte d i n ever-renewe d formulations . Horace's ut pictura poesis—as i s painting , s o i s poetry—became a cred o of th e humanisti c tradition . Paintin g an d poetr y ar e siste r arts , w e hea r time an d again ; the y appeare d a t a singl e birth , say s Giovann i Paol o Lomazzo i n th e lat e sixteent h century , t o len d concretenes s t o th e metaphor. 2 I n th e seventeent h an d earl y eighteent h centuries , scholars , artists, and writer s wh o continue d th e humanisti c traditio n clun g t o th e 149

Modern Theories of Art dogma o f th e parallelis m o f th e arts . Le t m e giv e a n example : Charle s du Fresno y open s hi s Art of Painting wit h th e followin g verses : True Poetr y th e painter' s powe r displays ; True Paintin g emulate s th e Poet' s ways ; The riva l Sisters , fon d o f equa l fame , Alternate chang e thei r offic e an d thei r name ; Bid silen t Poetr y th e canvas s warm , The tunefu l pag e wit h speakin g Pictur e charm. 3 And b y th e en d o f th e eighteent h century , whe n Lessing' s Laocoon wa s already know n i n England , Si r Joshu a Reynold s coul d stil l refe r quit e naturally t o Shakespear e a s "that faithfu l an d accurat e painte r o f nature " or remar k tha t "Michelangel o possesse d th e poetica l par t o f ou r ar t i n a mos t eminen t degree." 4 Dogmas hav e seriou s consequences . Th e dogmati c belie f i n th e in trinsic unit y o f th e variou s art s guide d aestheti c reflection , largel y determining where , o n whic h problems , th e emphasi s o f ar t theory — and o f poetics—wa s t o b e placed . T o mak e manifes t th e unit y o f th e arts rathe r tha n t o revea l th e difference s tha t separat e them , on e ha s t o concentrate o n thos e stage s o f th e creativ e proces s an d thos e feature s in th e structur e o f th e art s i n whic h unit y i s stronge r tha n diversity . Now, t o pu t i t ver y crudely : th e art s diffe r mos t fro m eac h othe r i n th e final realizatio n o f th e wor k the y create . Th e complete d statu e an d th e finished poe m ar e s o differen t fro m eac h othe r tha t on e ha s t o mak e a serious effor t t o discove r wha t the y hav e i n common . Bu t a t a n initia l stage o f thei r conception , s o a t leas t i t seems , the y ar e close r t o eac h other. On e ha s t o remembe r tha t th e traditio n tha t s o emphasize d th e unity o f th e art s wa s als o th e traditio n s o profoundl y concerne d wit h idea. Whethe r idea is conceive d i n a mor e psychologica l sense , a s th e image i n th e artist' s mind , o r i n a sociologica l sense , a s a cultural imag e transmitted b y tradition , i n th e creativ e proces s i t i s place d a t a stag e that precede s an y specifi c artisti c activity ; i t appear s befor e th e painte r gives i t pictoria l form , o r befor e th e poe t cast s i t i n rhymes . Th e intensive concer n wit h thi s earl y stag e i n th e creativ e proces s fits ver y well wit h a belief i n th e unit y o f th e arts . It wa s th e popularit y o f jus t thi s belief—tha t poetr y an d paintin g ICO

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts are "siste r arts"—tha t wa s profoundl y shake n b y Lessing' s book . Th e basic thesi s o f th e Laocoon, th e essentia l statemen t h e wishe d t o mak e on th e arts , i s precisely th e rejectio n o f th e centuries-ol d belie f tha t th e arts ar e intimatel y relate d t o eac h other . To understan d Lessing' s positio n mor e clearly , i t ma y b e i n orde r t o remind ourselve s briefl y o f th e obviou s question : why , i n th e firs t place , are paintin g an d poetr y "siste r arts" ? Wha t constitute d th e intimat e family relationshi p betwee n medi a that , a t a first glance , are so strikingl y different fro m eac h othe r a s paintin g an d poetry ? I n th e tradition , a n answer wa s adumbrated , suggested , although , strangel y enough , i t wa s hardly articulated . Bot h arts , i t wa s sai d o r intimated , imitat e nature , and bot h creat e a n illusio n o f reality . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o tak e u p that thorn y problem , th e imitatio n o f natur e i n art , a s seen i n Europea n thought. Ye t i t i s surel y n o exaggeratio n t o clai m tha t thi s idea , take n over fro m Antiquity , wa s reformulate d b y ever y singl e generatio n fro m the fourteent h o r fifteenth centur y onward , an d wa s th e focu s o f reflections o n art . Inevitabl y ther e wer e als o argument s a s t o wha t precisely i t i s tha t th e art s imitat e i n nature . I s i t th e fragmentar y piec e of realit y w e perceiv e directly ? I s i t men' s actions ? O r i s it , i n a mor e general sense , nature' s structure s an d mode s o f operation ? Th e argu ments ove r som e o f thes e question s wer e a t time s quit e bitter , bu t th e underlying assumptio n tha t th e art s imitat e natur e wa s neve r calle d int o question. Lessing , too , stil l take s thi s notio n fo r granted . Paintin g an d poetry ar e t o hi m specification s o f a single aestheti c typ e o f representa tion: bot h ar e mimeti c arts . "Poetr y an d painting , bot h ar e imitativ e arts"—so h e write s i n on e o f th e earlies t sketche s fo r Laocoon. 5 I t i s true tha t Lessin g doe s no t mak e art' s imitatio n o f natur e a specia l subject o f discussion , bu t i t i s obviou s tha t h e accept s th e thesi s a s th e framework o f hi s general theory . Of greater concer n fo r Lessin g i s the secon d reaso n fo r th e sisterhoo d of paintin g an d poetry , namely , tha t bot h creat e illusions . Th e openin g paragraph o f th e Laocoon, th e paragrap h tha t set s th e ton e fo r th e whol e work, make s th e creatio n o f a n illusio n th e centra l aim , th e tru e telos, of th e arts . Bot h paintin g an d poetry , w e her e read , produc e a "simila r effect" o n thei r audience , bot h plac e "befor e u s thing s absen t a s present, appearance a s reality." 6 I n his Briefe antiquarischen Inhalts, written i£i

Modern Theories of Art two o r thre e year s afte r th e publicatio n o f th e Laocoon, h e recapitulate s the centra l thesi s o f th e forme r work . Hi s task , h e say s i n th e secon d letter, 7 i s t o examin e ho w bot h th e poe t an d th e painte r undertak e "t o arrive a t th e sam e goa l o f illusio n b y entirel y differen t paths. " Illusion , then, i s th e goa l o f th e arts . Whil e Lessin g take s i t fo r grante d tha t th e imitation o f natur e i s the essenc e o f art , h e doe s no t discus s th e matter ; to illusion , however , h e frequentl y returns , an d consider s ho w i t i s produced. Illusion i n art , i n th e authenti c sens e o f th e term , refer s t o instance s where a n imag e i s take n b y a n observe r t o b e th e physica l objec t i t represents. I t gives ris e t o th e sor t o f mistak e Zeuxi s mad e whe n h e tried t o lif t th e painte d curtai n fro m Parrhasius ' picture . Renaissanc e texts provid e u s wit h man y example s o f thi s vie w o f illusion . Her e w e often rea d o f bird s pickin g a t painte d grape s o r o f horse s neighin g a t the picture s o f mares . I f suc h perfec t illusion— a rea l trompe l'oeil— occurs a t al l i n reality , i t i s obviousl y ver y rare . Ou r mai n interes t i n such effects , o r th e storie s abou t them , i s theoretical; they ar e presente d as th e extreme s o f a particula r specie s o f pictoria l effect . Otherwise , i n the Renaissanc e thi s coul d no t hav e been . I t i s difficul t t o believ e tha t an educate d observer , le t alon e a Leonard o o r a n Erasmus , coul d actually hav e assume d tha t a piec e o f painte d surfac e coul d eve r b e mistaken fo r a livin g perso n o r fo r a wid e landscap e extendin g int o depth. Unfortunately , ther e i s n o detaile d stud y o f wha t suc h state ments a s "misleading th e beholder " o r "mistakin g a painting fo r reality " actually mean t i n fifteenth- an d sixteenth-centur y parlance . Bu t on e ca n be sure , I think , that , whateve r th e semanti c scop e an d emotiona l connotation o f suc h phrases , the y wer e primaril y mean t t o expres s a theoretical attitude . Wha t i s thi s attitude ? A detailed analysi s woul d g o far beyon d th e limit s o f th e presen t study , bu t on e thin g stand s ou t clearly: i t i s th e tendenc y t o blu r th e dividin g lin e betwee n actual , physical realit y (wha t i s portrayed ) an d it s representatio n i n art . Ho w could th e painte d imag e b e mistake n fo r th e rea l objec t i f the y di d no t have a n identica l structure ? I t i s the artist' s meri t t o sho w tha t identity , to mak e th e structur e o f natur e manifes t i n th e form s o f hi s work . It i s her e tha t Lessin g clearl y deviate s fro m th e tradition , eve n i f h e does no t explicitl y sa y so . I t i s als o her e tha t h e become s a sourc e o f 1*2

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts modern trend s o f thought . I shal l tr y t o pu t th e ide a underlyin g Lessing's treatis e freely , withou t strictl y followin g hi s ow n wording . The illusionar y realit y produce d b y ar t i s no t a duplicatio n o f externa l reality; a paintin g doe s no t duplicat e a piec e o f nature . Th e lin e separating on e domai n fro m th e othe r ca n neve r b e obscured . Wha t i s presented t o u s b y eve n th e mos t faithfu l artisti c imitatio n o f natur e i s a translatio n o f tha t nature , o r a piec e o f it , int o anothe r language . Thi s of cours e i s no t t o sa y tha t Lessin g i n an y wa y rejecte d th e ide a tha t the creatio n o f illusio n i s th e final ai m o f th e arts . W e hav e jus t see n that, i n hi s view , al l th e art s striv e t o presen t somethin g absen t a s present. Bu t hi s wa y o f seeing th e natur e o f th e aestheti c illusio n differ s from wha t ha d bee n accepte d fo r centuries . Lessing use d th e ter m "sign " t o describ e th e mean s o f creatin g a work o f art , an d fro m hi s scattere d remark s i t clearl y follow s tha t th e painting o r th e poe m i s a syste m o f signs . Moder n semiologist s hav e good reaso n fo r thei r intensiv e concer n wit h Lessing' s doctrin e o f signs. 8 Unfortunately, h e neve r explaine d wha t precisel y h e understoo d b y "signs;" h e di d no t giv e us , a s on e woul d sa y today , a theor y o f signs . But sinc e th e earl y eighteent h century , i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind , th e term wa s occasionall y use d i n aestheti c reflection , an d i n discussin g certain theme s i t eve n acquire d a kind o f currency. Becaus e Lessin g wa s familiar wit h thes e uses , a brie f loo k a t wha t i t mean t befor e hi m ma y help u s t o bette r understan d hi s ow n usage . Originall y th e ter m wa s rarely applie d t o th e visua l arts ; ye t i n thos e rar e case s it s connotatio n is obvious . I n 1708 , Roge r d e Pile s wrot e i n hi s Corns de peinture par le principe that "word s (les paroles) ar e neve r hel d t o b e th e thing s them selves . . . th e wor d i s onl y a sig n fo r th e thing." 9 Thi s statemen t stil l breathes Renaissanc e air . Bu t onl y a decad e later , th e learne d an d influential Abb e Dubos—tha t somewha t diffus e wh o anticipate d s o much o f moder n thought—claim s tha t "paintin g neve r employ s artifi cial signs , a s doe s poetry , bu t use s natura l signs. " Now , i t woul d see m that bot h artificia l an d natura l sign s impl y a certai n distanc e betwee n the realit y represente d an d it s representatio n i n art . Bu t her e Dubo s hesitates: "Mayb e I a m no t speakin g correctl y whe n I say tha t paintin g employs signs : i t i s natur e itsel f tha t paintin g place s befor e ou r eyes. " 10 Few definition s coul d illustrat e a s clearl y th e tru e natur e o f illusio n a s i£3

Modern Theories of Art Dubos* retraction . I f paintin g use s signs , i t follow s fro m wha t h e says , it doe s no t cance l th e ga p betwee n itsel f an d th e natur e represented ; but becaus e i t place s natur e itsel f befor e ou r eyes , i t ha s n o need , an d also n o room , fo r signs . Ther e is , then , n o sig n withou t a basi c difference betwee n wha t signifie s (th e wor k o f art ) an d wha t i s signifie d (nature). Lessing, i t nee d hardl y b e said , wa s familia r wit h th e traditio n w e have her e represente d b y Roge r d e Pile s an d th e Abb e Dubos . A s i s well known , h e wa s attentiv e t o discussion s amon g th e scholar s an d critics o f hi s time , an d h e refer s t o the m wheneve r h e raise s som e controversial idea s o r notions . Lik e Dubos , b e speak s o f "artificial " an d "natural" signs , bu t withou t hesitatio n h e include s th e "natural " one s in th e domai n o f signs . Artificia l an d natura l sign s diffe r fro m eac h other i n man y respects , an d t o som e o f the m I shall shortl y return ; bu t both o f the m ar e signs ; tha t is , i n n o wa y ar e the y identica l wit h wha t they portray . A crucia l passag e i n th e sixteent h chapte r o f Laocoon begins: "I f i t b e tru e tha t painting , i n it s imitations , make s us e o f entirely differen t mean s an d sign s fro m thos e whic h poetr y em ploys. . . . " Th e question , then , i s no t whethe r th e painte r i n hi s wor k uses signs ; i t i s onl y whethe r th e sign s h e employ s are , o r ar e not , different fro m th e sign s th e poe t employs . A s a moder n semiologis t would clai m tha t a n "iconi c sign " i s n o les s a sig n tha n a n "aniconic " one, s o Lessin g say s tha t th e pictoria l sig n i s essentiall y n o les s a sig n than th e poeti c one . Now , i f yo u remembe r wha t a sig n means , yo u cannot hel p concludin g tha t i n paintin g a s wel l a s i n poetr y a n un bridgeable ga p remain s betwee n natur e an d art . Lessin g reject s a basic , though ofte n onl y implied , assumptio n o f Renaissanc e aesthetics . In outlinin g Lessing' s vie w o f th e sig n a s th e centra l notio n o f artisti c creation w e hav e emphasize d th e differenc e betwee n th e sig n an d wha t it signifies , a differenc e tha t i s o f th e ver y essenc e o f th e sign . Bu t her e we ru n int o a paradox . I f th e sig n i s i n it s ver y essenc e differen t fro m what i t signifies , ho w the n doe s i t manag e t o produc e a n illusion ? Illusion, howeve r interpreted , suggest s a unity , o r a t leas t a clos e relationship, betwee n th e representatio n an d wha t i t represents . To dissolv e thi s paradox , w e hav e t o remembe r what , i n Lessing' s view, actuall y happen s whe n w e aestheticall y experienc e a wor k o f art . '54

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts A work o f art , i t ha s bee n sai d i n a recen t analysi s o f Lessing' s aestheti c doctrine, 11 exist s o n tw o levels . On e i s th e materia l stratum , th e piec e of matte r i n whic h th e wor k i s shape d a s a materia l object , tha t is , th e carved stone , th e painte d surfac e o f a pane l o r a stretc h o f wall . Th e other i s th e imag e o f a n immateria l appearance , th e menta l pictur e dwelling i n th e imaginatio n tha t ha s bee n produce d b y our experiencin g the shape d materia l object . Thi s appearanc e exists , o f course , onl y i n the beholder' s mind ; i t is , needless t o say , a n illusionar y object . The subjec t o f aestheti c experienc e i s only tha t imaginary , illusionar y object tha t dwell s i n th e spectator' s (o r reader's , o r listener's ) mind . Whenever th e ai m o f ar t i s achieve d an d w e perceiv e th e absen t a s present, i t i s tha t illusionar y object , th e appearanc e i n ou r mind , tha t does th e job . Th e ar t wor k a s a materia l objec t onl y excite s ou r imagination, i t onl y awaken s th e image s o f th e absen t things . Aestheti c reception passe s through , an d goe s beyond , th e sensibl e stratu m o f works o f ar t i n orde r t o reac h th e appearance . A t tha t stage , w e ca n say, th e spectator' s imaginatio n actualize s th e aestheti c object . Or , a s Lessing put s it , "fo r tha t whic h w e discove r t o b e beautifu l i n a wor k of art i s not discovere d b y ou r eye , bu t b y th e forc e o f our imagination , through th e eye " (p. 93). Lessing's attitude , i t shoul d b e noted , i s no t "psychological " o r "subjective" i n th e sens e thes e term s hav e acquire d i n everyda y talk . The tru e aestheti c object , dwellin g i n ou r imagination , ma y b e intangi ble, i t ma y remai n a mer e "appearance " tha t canno t b e precisel y pinpointed an d measured , ye t i t i s fa r fro m bein g arbitrar y o r a matte r of chance , no t subjec t t o stric t laws . O n th e contrary , Lessin g believe s that th e ver y emergenc e an d form s o f thes e appearance s ar e a matter o f predictable regularity . The abilit y t o for m i n th e min d a n aestheti c objec t i s a gif t grante d to ma n only , settin g u s apar t fro m al l othe r creatures . I t i s a n abilit y that elevate s ma n beyon d th e stag e o f immediat e perception , abov e a close an d immediat e dependenc e o n nature . "Anima l eyes, " Lessin g writes i n a preparatory not e fo r th e Laocoon, "ar e harde r t o deceiv e tha n human eyes ; they se e nothin g bu t wha t the y see ; we, on th e othe r hand , are seduce d b y th e imaginatio n s o tha t w e believ e w e se e eve n wha t w e don't see." 12 Her e Lessing' s historica l positio n become s strikingl y man -

155 i «

Modern Theories of Art ifest, and , a s i n a flash, w e becom e awar e o f ho w fa r remove d h e i s from th e humanisti c traditio n tha t originate d i n th e Renaissance . Fif teenth- an d sixteenth-centur y author s endlessl y repeate d th e well known storie s o f bird s an d horse s bein g misle d b y painte d grape s o r mares. Th e purpos e o f tellin g thes e storie s i s clear : the y wer e intende d to stat e ho w clos e t o nature , an d therefor e ho w "convincing, " a goo d artistic representatio n ca n be . Th e lifelikenes s o f a good representatio n seemed t o b e roote d i n natur e itself , an d therefor e th e criterio n o f th e trompe l'oeil is a universa l one , vali d fo r al l creatures . Lessin g reverse d that position . Th e bir d an d th e horse , i t follow s fro m wha t h e says , ar e unable t o se e anythin g tha t i s no t actuall y there . The y ar e blin d t o ar t because the y canno t se e th e absen t a s present . Th e gif t o f aestheti c experience i s a hallmar k o f man' s distinc t plac e i n th e world . Our perceptio n o f th e wor k o f art , i t als o follows , i s n o passiv e reception o f an imprin t mad e b y the wor k o f art tha t exist s "ou t there, " beyond th e reac h o f th e beholder . Wha t w e se e i n aestheti c experienc e is, i n actua l fact , th e produc t o f a n interactio n betwee n th e wor k qua natural, materia l objec t an d th e beholder . I f eve r ther e wa s a thinke r who grante d th e beholde r a rea l shar e i n aestheti c experience , i t wa s Lessing. I t shoul d b e note d i n passing , althoug h w e canno t discus s thi s here, tha t h e doe s no t accor d a simila r interes t an d attentio n t o th e artist. Whil e Lessin g come s bac k tim e an d agai n t o th e spectato r (o r reader), h e ha s littl e us e fo r th e artist . The significanc e o f th e beholder' s shar e shoul d b e on e o f th e artist' s leading concerns . I n shapin g hi s work , th e artis t shoul d avoi d anythin g that prevent s th e spectato r fro m contributin g hi s ful l share . Thus , a painter shoul d neve r represen t th e highes t degre e o f passion . Thi s i s s o because "Beyon d thi s [th e highes t degre e o f passion ] ther e i s nothing , and t o sho w th e mos t extrem e poin t i s to bin d th e wing s o f Fancy , an d to compe l her , inasmuc h a s her powe r canno t g o beyon d th e impressio n on th e senses , t o bus y hersel f wit h feebl e an d subordinat e images , beyond whic h i s tha t visibl e fulnes s o f expressio n whic h sh e shun s a s her boundary " (p . 71) . Th e beholder' s aestheti c experienc e an d hi s active contributio n t o i t have , then , a direc t impac t o n th e artist' s consideration, a subjec t t o whic h w e shal l retur n i n th e cours e o f thi s chapter. 156

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts From a presentation , eve n i f onl y i n th e mos t genera l terms , o f Lessing's broa d aestheti c principles , le t u s no w tur n t o th e art s them selves. I n hi s view , wha t ar e th e criteri a fo r distinguishin g betwee n on e art an d another ? An d wha t ar e th e principle s governin g th e groupin g o f the individua l art s int o larger , mor e comprehensiv e units ? Tw o group s of arts , Lessin g claims , ar e irreducibl e t o eac h other , an d the y ar e thu s the ultimat e constituent s o f th e worl d o f art . Th e tw o group s ar e mor e distinctly represente d b y paintin g an d poetry . Th e reaso n fo r distin guishing the m i s not an y specific , eve n i f most important , characteristic ; rather i t i s something tha t involve s thei r whol e existence . Th e bes t wa y to gras p wha t distinguishe s betwee n the m i s t o tr y answerin g th e question, wha t i s th e mod e o f existenc e o f th e wor k pertainin g t o on e or th e othe r groups ? I n wha t dimensio n o f bein g i s a painting , a s opposed t o a poem, located ? Lessin g attempts , s o i t seems , t o mak e thi s difference no t a matte r o f subjectiv e impressio n bu t on e o f objectiv e being (though , a s w e shal l immediatel y see , he canno t avoi d th e specta tor's o r reader' s perception . Paintin g an d sculpture , whic h i s affiliate d with it , exis t i n space ; poetr y an d al l th e literar y arts , a s wel l a s music , exist i n time . This well-know n divisio n i s clearly formulated . "Bu t I will try t o conside r th e matte r upo n first principles, " Lessin g say s a t th e opening o f th e sixteent h chapte r o f th e Laocoon. " I reaso n i n thi s way . If i t b e tru e tha t painting , i n it s imitations , make s us e o f entirel y different mean s an d sign s fro m thos e tha t poetr y employs ; th e forme r employing figures an d color s i n space , th e latte r articulat e sound s i n time . . . i t follow s tha t paintin g an d poetr y represen t object s o f a different nature " (p . 131). The proble m ha s frequentl y bee n discussed ; nevertheles s i t ma y no t be altogethe r superfluou s t o as k wha t Lessin g mean s b y "space " an d "time" i n connectio n wit h th e arts . I t shoul d b e note d that , abou t twenty year s befor e Kan t publishe d hi s Critique of Pure Reason, Lessing does no t conceiv e o f spac e a s som e kin d o f imagine d containe r withi n which object s ar e placed . T o pu t i t boldly—an d disregardin g a grea t many philosophica l subtleties—w e coul d sa y tha t Lessin g understand s space a s a wa y o f perceivin g objects . Instea d o f bein g a container, i t i s a type o f intuition . Th e characte r o f thi s typ e o f perceptio n i s bes t described b y sayin g tha t i t show s u s everythin g a s coexisting , tha t i t i s 1 £7

Modern Theories of Art a simultaneou s kin d o f vision . Spac e i s simultaneit y o f thing s i n a synoptic view , i n th e homogenoou s for m o f vision . Thing s i n spac e ar e "what th e ey e survey s a t once " o r tha t "whic h i n natur e woul d b e see n at once " (pp . 140-44) . It i s interestin g fo r th e stud y o f Lessing' s psycholog y tha t i n th e reality o f vision , a s h e believes , simultaneit y i s onl y a n illusion . Wha t really happen s whe n w e vie w object s i n spac e i s no t a simultaneou s grasp o f th e variou s parts , bu t a process i n time . This process , however , takes plac e s o quickl y tha t w e ar e lef t wit h th e illusio n o f timelessness , of instan t an d simultaneou s vision . "Ho w shal l w e attai n t o th e clea r representation o f a thin g i n space? " Lessin g asks , and answer s "Firs t w e consider th e separat e part s o f it , the n th e combinatio n o f thes e parts , and lastl y th e whole. " Th e object , then , i s no t reall y see n a t once , bu t in a sequenc e o f steps : first th e individua l parts , the n thei r combina tions, finally th e whole . Lessin g her e picture s visual , spatia l perceptio n as th e buildin g u p o f th e objec t i n th e spectator' s mind . "Ou r sense s achieve thes e differen t operation s wit h s o astoundin g a speed, tha t the y appear t o u s t o b e bu t one , an d thi s spee d i s necessaril y indispensabl e when w e hav e t o attai n a conceptio n o f th e whole , whic h i s n o mor e than th e resul t o f the conceptio n o f the parts , and o f their combination " (p. 140) .

The studen t o f perceptua l processess , Lessin g might hav e agreed , wil l be intereste d i n th e rapi d surveyin g tha t lie s behin d a seemingl y simul taneous impression ; t o th e naiv e spectator , t o th e perso n standin g i n front o f a vie w o f natur e o r a painting , thi s invisibl e proces s doe s no t matter. T o him , spatia l perceptio n i s and remain s simultaneous . Becaus e the art s depen d o n th e wa y the y ar e perceived , th e studen t o f ar t an d aesthetics necessaril y disregard s wha t lie s beyon d th e real m o f percep tibility. T o him , spac e i s completely differen t i n structur e fro m time . Poetry, unlik e painting , materialize s i n time ; its ver y structur e i s tha t of succession , whic h i s necessaril y a tempora l succession . Poetry , Less ing tell s hi s readers , fashion s it s sign s fro m "articulat e sound s i n time " (p. 131) . Yo u ca n se e thi s bes t b y simpl y readin g a poe m aloud : th e former sound , o r word , mus t altogethe r disappea r fro m th e world , mus t become a remembere d past , fo r th e nex t soun d o r wor d t o b e hear d and t o b e intelligible . Th e listene r o r reade r slowl y build s u p i n hi s 1*8

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts mind th e whol e poe m o r narrative . Th e tempora l structur e o f poetr y and narrativ e i s to o wel l know n t o b e describe d her e i n detail . Le t u s only emphasize that , i n Lessing' s view , th e astoundin g spee d o f scannin g —necessarily a proces s i n time—tha t make s viewin g a pictur e appea r as timeles s i s absen t fro m th e literar y arts . Th e recitin g o f a poe m o r the tellin g o f a stor y take s plac e a t a slo w pace , i t i s extende d ove r a considerable stretc h o f time . In othe r words , th e passin g o f tim e becomes a perceptional qualit y i n literature. "Le t i t b e granted," Lessin g says i n th e seventeent h chapte r o f th e Laocoon y "tha t th e poe t lead s u s in th e mos t perfec t orde r fro m on e par t o f th e objec t t o another ; le t i t be grante d tha t h e know s ho w t o mak e th e combinatio n o f th e whol e clear t o us,—ho w lon g a tim e doe s h e requir e fo r th e purpose ? Tha t which th e ey e a t onc e survey s h e ennumerate s t o u s wit h marke d slowness b y degrees , an d i t ofte n happen s tha t w e hav e forgotte n th e first whe n w e hav e arrive d a t th e last " (p . 140) . Does thi s juxtaposition o f th e arts—thos e materialize d i n spac e an d those realize d i n time—i n an y wa y impl y a difference i n th e valu e wit h which eac h o f the m i s endowed ? Lessing' s explici t ai m i s no t t o pronounce valu e judgment s o n th e arts ; wha t h e set s ou t t o d o i s t o describe thei r boundaries . An d ye t th e studen t canno t disregar d th e fac t that Lessing' s attitud e i s not altogethe r "value-free. " Behin d th e analyt ical descriptio n ther e i s a n attitud e o f evaluation . Usuall y thi s attitud e remains i n th e background , bu t sometime s i t i s mad e manifest . Havin g read throug h th e Laocodn a s wel l a s som e othe r o f hi s writing s pertinen t to ou r themes , on e canno t hel p feelin g tha t Lessin g ha s som e imag e o f a hierarch y o f th e arts . I n fact , h e ma y wel l hav e pave d th e wa y fo r such systemati c construction s a s wer e presente d onl y on e o r tw o generations afte r hi s death . I t ma y therefor e b e justifiabl e t o as k wha t his criteri a wer e fo r placin g a n ar t o n a highe r o r lowe r level . Lessing doe s no t tel l u s wha t hi s yardstick s ar e fo r measurin g th e value o f th e individua l arts , o r ho w the y ar e linke d t o hi s overal l vie w of art . A n attentiv e reader , however , canno t fai l t o discove r bot h th e nature o f th e criteri a employe d an d th e reason s fo r usin g them . I n th e following observations , I shall attemp t t o present—i n a short schemati c way tha t Lessin g woul d immediatel y reject—bot h hi s criteri a an d thei r justification i n hi s thought . '£9

Modern Theories of Art The Beholder's Share. Th e aestheti c objec t dwellin g i n th e beholder' s min d is, w e hav e jus t seen , th e resul t o f a n interactio n betwee n th e wor k o f art a s a materia l objec t an d th e spectator . I t follow s fro m Lessing' s doctrine tha t th e greate r th e spectator' s activit y stimulate d b y th e wor k of art, th e bette r th e work . Thi s seem s t o b e tru e fo r th e art s i n general . The differen t art s allow , an d eve n cal l for , differen t degree s o f creativ e activity o n th e par t o f thei r audiences . Th e "natura l sign, " thoug h a "sign" i n th e ful l sens e o f tha t word , require s o f it s audienc e les s "translation" int o a different idio m tha n doe s th e "artificial " sign . Whe n the poe t describe s a n object , tha t objec t i s no t full y present , i t doesn' t arrest th e imagination . "Wit h th e poet, " Lessin g says , " a garmen t i s n o garment: i t cover s nothing : ou r imaginatio n see s entirel y throug h it " (p . 90). Th e literar y descriptio n o f a n objec t expands , i t i s buil t u p i n th e reader's mind , an d i n tha t proces s hi s shar e i s obviousl y increased . I n a long passag e devote d t o anothe r subjec t (th e temporalit y o f literar y description), Lessin g deal s wit h a famou s exampl e o f th e literar y de scription o f a material object , Homer' s accoun t o f th e shiel d o f Achille s — "tha t famou s picture, " Lessin g writes , "i n consequenc e o f whic h more especiall y Home r ha s fro m al l antiquit y bee n considere d a s th e teacher o f painting. " I t i s worth ou r whil e t o follo w hi s description : A shield, i t wil l b e said , i s surel y a n individua l corporea l object , th e detaile d description o f th e successiv e part s o f whic h canno t b e allowe d t o belon g t o the provinc e o f th e poet . An d ye t Home r ha s describe d thi s shiel d i n mor e than a hundre d admirabl e verses . . . . Home r doe s no t pain t thi s shiel d a s perfect an d alread y made . H e ha s availed himsel f o f th e muc h praise d artific e of changing tha t whic h i s co-existent i n hi s design int o tha t whic h i s successive, and thereb y presentin g u s with th e livin g picture o f an actio n instea d o f the wearisom e descriptio n o f a body. W e do not se e the shield bu t th e divin e master a s he works. . . . We d o no t los e sight o f the m (th e figures) till al l are finished. Now the y are finished, and w e stand amaze d over the work , bu t i t is with th e believin g amazemen t o f a n eye-witnes s wh o ha s see n th e wor k wrought, (p . 149 ) The eyewitnes s is , in fact , a partne r i n th e poet' s conjurin g u p o f th e object, h e i s a n associat e i n th e creativ e proces s o f th e literar y descrip tion. Ha d h e bee n presente d wit h th e shiel d itself , o r ha d h e bee n looking a t a materia l depictio n o f th e finished shield , h e coul d no t hav e 160

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts participated t o th e sam e degree . I n poetr y th e beholder' s shar e i s large r than i n painting . The Material Nature as a Constraint. Th e wor k o f th e visua l arts , unlik e th e product o f poetr y an d narrative , necessaril y ha s a materia l substratu m — t h e carve d stone , th e cas t bronze , th e painte d panel . Thi s materia l layer Lessin g conceive s a s a boundary , a s a limitatio n o n th e spectator' s creative imagination . Frequentl y h e speak s o f th e painting' s o r th e statue's "materia l confines " (materielle Schranken.) It shoul d b e remem bered tha t Lessin g wa s n o Platonist ; hi s rationa l min d wa s oppose d i n many way s t o th e mystica l leaning s tha t characteriz e th e Platoni c tren d in medieva l an d Renaissanc e tradition . An d ye t h e seem s t o hav e take n over som e attitude s tha t originall y belonge d t o mystica l Platonism . I n that traditio n o f thought , matte r wa s conceive d a s a n ultimat e bound ary, a "prison, " a s i t wa s sometime s called . Withou t goin g s o far , Lessing view s matte r i n a simila r way , eve n wher e aestheti c matter s ar e concerned. H e doe s no t stress , fo r example , tha t th e materia l characte r of th e paintin g o r th e piec e o f sculptur e confe r o n th e pictur e o r statu e a greate r concreteness ; wha t h e stresse s i s tha t th e materia l laye r i s a confining limitation . Matter i s no t onl y a metaphysica l limitation , a s th e Platonist s sa w it ; it also has direct aestheti c implications . The artist , we remember , shoul d devote grea t attentio n t o choosin g th e righ t momen t o f a n actio n fo r representation, an d h e shoul d avoi d showin g "th e mos t extrem e poin t of action. " Wh y shoul d thi s b e so ? " I believe, " say s Lessing , "tha t the singl e momen t t o whic h th e materia l limit s o f ar t confin e al l he r imitations wil l lea d u s t o suc h considerations " (p . 70) . Th e poet' s position i s altogether different . Th e materia l confine s d o no t see m t o b e valid fo r hi s work . Eve n wher e h e use s personifications , the y ar e no t subject t o materia l confines . "Althoug h th e poe t likewis e make s u s think o f th e goddes s a s a huma n figure, h e ha s nevertheles s remove d al l ideas o f coars e an d heav y matte r an d h e ha s enlivene d he r bod y wit h a force whic h exempt s he r fro m th e law s o f huma n locomotion. " What Can Be Represented? Perhap s th e mos t crucia l differenc e betwee n the art s i s wha t on e o r th e othe r can , o r cannot , represent . Th e rang e 161

Modern Theories of Art of th e variou s art s i s no t identical ; wha t lie s withi n th e reac h o f on e may wel l b e beyon d th e reac h o f th e other . Bot h group s o f arts , th e pictorial a s wel l a s th e poetical , hav e thei r limitations , bu t th e bound aries ar e no t th e same . Man y a direc t sens e perceptio n ma y wel l b e beyond wha t th e poe t ca n directl y describe . Ho w ca n he , t o adduc e a n example tha t ha s ha d a lon g history , describ e i n word s th e apparentl y simple sensatio n "red" ? Bu t Lessin g i s no t s o muc h concerne d wit h pointing ou t th e poet' s limitations ; wha t h e mainl y want s t o sho w i s what th e painte r canno t do . Ther e ar e larg e part s o f realit y tha t poetr y can describ e an d literatur e ca n narrat e bu t tha t th e visua l art s canno t represent. Lessing' s treatis e o n fables, a n earl y wor k tha t i n man y respects i s a precursor o f th e Laocoon, "put s th e painte r i n hi s place/ ' t o use Gombrich' s formulatio n (p . 141) . Th e tes t o f a goo d fable , Lessin g here declares , i s tha t i t canno t b e properl y illustrated . " A fabl e i s a n action," consistin g o f a serie s o f change s tha t for m on e whole . " I ca n consider i t a s a n infallibl e tes t tha t a fabl e i s poor , tha t i t doe s no t deserve th e nam e fable , i f it s suppose d actio n i s capabl e o f bein g completely depicted." 13 I n a n image , h e say s a littl e earlier , " I ca n wel l detect a mora l truth , bu t thi s doe s no t mea n tha t i t [th e image ] i s a fable." Tantalus , thirstin g whil e standin g i n a stream , i s a n imag e showing tha t on e ca n starv e i n th e mids t o f plenty . Bu t i s thi s imag e therefore als o a fable?—s o run s Lessing' s rhetorica l question . Th e answer canno t b e i n doubt . Th e fabl e canno t b e depicted . Lessing's denia l o f th e picture' s abilit y t o full y illustrat e th e stor y i s not onl y a theoretical statement ; i t take s plac e withi n a definite cultura l context. I t ha s convincingl y bee n sai d tha t Lessin g her e specificall y directed hi s argumen t agains t th e traditio n o f emblems . A n emblem , w e remember, combine s wor d an d imag e i n orde r t o conve y t o th e reader spectator a mora l message . I t i s o f cours e no t a matte r o f chanc e tha t the tradition—on e i s tempted t o sa y th e culture—o f emblem s evolve d within th e humanisti c movement , fro m th e sixteent h t o th e lat e eight eenth century , an d tha t th e audienc e fo r emble m book s consiste d o f those learne d circle s w e usuall y cal l "humanists. " Th e popularit y o f th e emblem boo k i n th e humanis t traditio n canno t surpris e us . The organi c combination o f wor d an d image , th e ver y essenc e o f th e emblem , i s ye t another versio n o f th e humanisti c cred o i n th e arts , namel y tha t the y 162

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts are paralle l t o eac h other . A n emble m is , a s a matte r o f principle , a concrete exampl e o f ut pictura poesis. As w e know , Lessin g reject s thi s principle . H e therefor e als o reject s the emble m an d denie s tha t th e fabl e ca n b e illustrated . Th e differenc e in rang e betwee n paintin g an d poetr y i s mad e manifes t i n man y ways . Let u s com e bac k t o th e Laocoon, wher e Lessin g deal s wit h on e strikin g example o f thi s difference . Homer , h e says , "create s tw o classe s o f beings an d o f actions , visibl e an d invisible . Paintin g i s incompeten t t o represent thi s difference . . . ." H e polemicize s wit h Coun t Caylus , wh o placed th e invisibl e action s i n unbroke n sequenc e wit h th e visibl e ones . Painting i s plainl y incapabl e o f representin g th e invisible . "Th e wors t consequence," h e goe s o n t o say , "i s this , tha t a s th e distinctio n between visibl e an d invisibl e i s take n awa y b y th e painter , al l th e characteristic feature s ar e immediatel y lost , b y mean s o f whic h thi s higher kin d i s elevated abov e th e lesser " (p . 119) . Representation of Complexity. A particula r cas e o f th e differen t rang e o f the individua l arts , o f wha t eac h o f the m ca n o r canno t represent , i s o f such significanc e i n ou r contex t tha t i t mus t b e considere d separately . To wha t exten t ca n paintin g an d poetr y rende r th e complexit y o f a subject, particularl y o f a figure, withou t becomin g unintelligible ? Som e of Lessing' s mos t interestin g observation s ar e mad e o n thi s particula r point. We hav e jus t see n tha t paintin g canno t depic t th e invisible , tha t i t has n o mean s o f dealin g wit h wha t goe s beyon d sheer , regula r visibility . This i s also tru e fo r th e image s o f th e gods. Paintin g reduce s th e variou s ontological level s o f th e Homeri c worl d t o th e homogeneou s worl d o f everyday visua l experienc e "Greatness , strength , speed , qualitie s whic h Homer keep s i n reserv e fo r hi s god s i n a highe r an d mor e wonderfu l degree tha t thos e whic h h e attribute s t o hi s bes t heroes , sin k dow n t o the leve l o f th e commo n measur e o f humanity , an d Jupite r an d Aga memnon, Apoll o an d Achilles , Aja x an d Mars , becom e entirel y being s of th e sam e kin d . . . " (p . 121) . T o kee p the m apar t fro m eac h other , the painte r endow s the m wit h wha t w e woul d toda y cal l "iconographi c attributes," Zeus' s thunderbolt , Apollo' s lyr e o r bow , an d s o on . Bu t are no t thes e ver y attribute s admission s o f painting' s inabilit y t o mani 163

Modern Theories of Art fest th e gods ' essenc e directly , t o mak e thei r appearanc e intelligibl e without externa l aids ? And ho w ca n th e painte r represen t th e complexit y o f a single figure? How ca n h e sho w tha t th e ver y sam e figure ha s different , ofte n eve n conflicting qualitie s o f character ? Lessin g enter s int o vigorou s debat e with Josep h Spenc e (1699—1768) , a representativ e o f th e schoo l o f speculative metholog y tha t continue d som e Neoplatoni c trend s int o th e late eighteent h century . I n hi s Volymetis (1747), Spenc e attempt s t o explain th e natur e o f th e Gree k god s o n th e basi s of their representatio n in Gree k art . Thi s lead s Lessin g t o hi s ow n subject , th e relation s between th e arts , an d wha t eac h ar t ca n represent . "O f th e mutua l resemblance whic h subsist s betwee n Poetr y an d Painting , Spenc e ha s the mos t extraordinar y notions " (p . 102) . Lessin g her e come s bac k t o his ol d claim : Spenc e doe s no t se e th e differenc e betwee n th e arts , h e does no t notic e tha t eve n wher e the y portra y th e ver y sam e subject , each o f the m slightl y modifie s it . I n fact , th e poe t an d th e painte r d o not sho w o r represen t exactl y identica l god s o r spiritua l beings . "Th e gods an d spiritua l beings , a s represente d b y th e artist , ar e no t entirel y the sam e a s thos e who m th e poe t make s us e of. " Her e Lessin g doe s no t speak o f th e differenc e o f medium , bu t o f a differenc e i n content , a change i n th e natur e an d identit y o f th e figure. "T o th e artis t the y ar e personified abstracta, whic h mus t alway s maintai n th e sam e characteris tics i f the y ar e t o b e recognized . T o th e poet , o n th e othe r hand , the y are rea l actin g creatures , which , i n additio n t o thei r genera l character , have othe r qualitie s an d affections , which , a s circumstance s affor d th e opportunity, predominate " (p . 104) . At a first reading , thi s seem s rathe r shocking . Th e visua l arts , th e works o f whic h hav e a material , tangibl e substratum , whic h operat e with natura l signs , whic h provid e a n immediate , direc t sensua l experi ence—it i s thes e art s tha t creat e abstractions . Th e reaso n fo r Lessing' s view i s o f cours e obvious . Th e visua l arts , freezin g th e figures the y depict int o on e moment , on e unchangeabl e view , do no t hav e th e abilit y to manifes t th e variet y o f aspects , th e multitud e o f propertie s tha t actually belon g t o th e natur e o f a mythologica l figure, and , wer e the y to tr y t o expres s tha t variety , the y woul d necessaril y becom e illegible . 164

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts 2. HERDER' S PLASTI K

It i s perhap s bes t t o star t a brie f revie w o f though t devote d t o th e individual art s wit h th e treatis e b y Herde r know n a s Plastik. Thi s i s among th e earlies t moder n document s attestin g t o th e attemp t t o interpret th e particula r natur e o f a n artisti c mediu m b y referrin g t o a specific field o f sens e experience . Plastik wa s a lon g tim e i n th e making ; the first draft s predat e th e final version , publishe d i n 1778 , by a decade . This wa s a creativ e decad e i n th e youn g Herder' s career , a tim e whe n he wrot e hi s importan t Uber neue deutsche Literatur (Concerning Recen t German Literature ) (1766—1767 ) an d Critical Forests (Kritisch e Walder) . Yet frequen t rewritin g di d no t necessaril y lea d t o a clea r an d simpl e diction; Plastik, writte n i n a fervent style , lacks th e lucidit y an d transpar ence tha t sometime s accompanie s slowl y forme d masterpiece s o f thought . In spit e o f som e repetitivenes s an d ambiguity , however , Herder' s Plastik is a signpos t i n th e evolutio n o f moder n though t o n th e arts ; i t anticipates a great dea l o f nineteenth - an d twentieth-centur y reflection , and ha s certainl y merite d mor e attentio n tha t i t ha s received . Herder himsel f tell s hi s reader s wha t motivate d hi m t o writ e Plastik. "When philosophizin g abou t th e art s wa s stil l th e fashion, " h e discloses , "I searche d fo r a long tim e fo r a n actua l concep t tha t woul d distinguis h between beautifu l shape s an d colors , sculptur e an d painting , a n d — I did no t find one." 1 4 Paintin g an d sculptur e wer e alway s considere d i n one an d th e sam e context . I n tha t shor t passage , Herde r bot h describe s his historica l positio n an d th e ai m o f hi s investigation . Hi s historica l position i s clearl y define d b y hi s takin g th e syste m o f th e "fin e arts, " the beaux arts, for granted . Th e lon g period s precedin g th e moder n age , periods i n whic h artist s ha d t o prov e th e inheren t valu e o f thei r occupation an d t o se t themselve s of f fro m mer e craftsmen , ha d lon g passed. Tha t ther e i s some basi c commo n valu e unitin g th e visua l art s i s no longe r doubted . Wha t reall y concern s Herde r i s the underpinnin g o f the individua l arts , a n underpinnin g tha t ha s nothin g t o d o wit h th e social o r intellectua l standin g o f paintin g o r sculpture , bu t rathe r wit h their ver y natur e a s uniqu e arts . H e i s wel l awar e o f th e profoun d differences betwee n paintin g an d sculpture , an d h e set s ou t t o inquir e 16*

Modern Theories of Art into th e basi s o f thes e differences . Hi s answer , pu t i n a nutshell , i s this : "To sigh t belon g onl y planes , paintings , figures o f on e plane , bu t bodie s and shape s o f bodie s belon g t o touch " (p . 249) . I n othe r words , th e two-dimensional ar t o f paintin g appeal s t o sight , wherea s th e three dimensional ar t o f sculptur e appeal s t o th e sens e o f touch . Simpl e an d self-evident a s suc h a statemen t ma y see m t o a twentieth-centur y reader, i n actua l fac t i t constitute s a far-reaching revolution , an d reveal s still anothe r face t o f Herder' s originality . Students o f th e eighteent h centur y nee d no t b e tol d o f th e innova tiveness an d significanc e o f Johann Gottfrie d Herde r (1744-1803) , an d 1 shall no t attemp t her e t o dra w hi s portrait. 15 I n th e presen t context , I should lik e onl y t o emphasiz e on e characteristi c o f hi s thought—hi s looking, i n ever y field o f study , fo r th e aborigina l sources , fo r th e primitive an d first layers . Becaus e Herder' s interes t wer e s o diversified , the "sources " an d origin s h e deal s wit h ar e o f a sometimes bewilderin g variety. Wha t thes e source s hav e i n common , however , i s that, whethe r referring t o religio n o r painting , poetr y o r worl d history , the y ar e always presente d a s specifi c an d real , neve r a s abstrac t ideas . A goo d example i s hi s interpretation , undertake n togethe r wit h hi s teacher , th e German philosophe r Hamann , th e "magu s o f th e North, " o f th e Boo k of Genesis . I t ha s correctl y bee n sai d tha t th e ai m o f thi s interpretatio n is no t t o discove r som e abstrac t notion ; Herde r an d Haman n studie d the Bibl e fo r it s graphic portraya l o f th e primitiv e Hebrews . Th e ke y t o this exegesis , i t ha s bee n maintained , lie s i n th e "inversio n o f th e com mon eighteent h centur y appraisa l o f th e relativ e merit s o f th e concret e and th e abstract . Th e concret e no w becam e th e natural ; th e pictoria l was no t crud e an d obfuscator y bu t mor e powerfull y human . Th e abstract wa s incomprehensibl e an d arid." 16 I n th e sam e vein , h e ap proached Ossia n almos t wit h veneration , placin g hi m o n th e sam e loft y height a s Homer . The sam e tren d o f though t i s seen i n Herder' s attempt s t o deriv e th e arts fro m som e primeva l layer s o f huma n experience . An d wha t coul d be mor e primeva l an d concret e tha n th e specifi c senses , an d th e expe rience o f th e surroundin g worl d tha t the y transmi t t o us ? "Were al l ou r notions i n th e science s an d th e arts, " write s Herder , "reduce d t o thei r origins, o r coul d the y thu s b e reduced , connection s woul d b e separate d 166

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts and separation s woul d b e connected , a s w e don' t find the m i n tha t great confusio n o f al l thing s w e cal l lif e o r reality " (p . 249) . The eighteent h centur y wa s no t indifferen t t o th e sens e o f touch . Even thoug h tha t sens e wa s no t analyze d i n an y detai l comparabl e t o Herder's, a n object' s tangibilit y seem s t o hav e bee n accepte d a s th e ultimate proo f o f it s independen t existenc e a s wel l a s o f th e abilit y o f our sense s t o provid e u s wit h reliabl e an d irrefutabl e informatio n abou t the surrounding world . Th e ter m "object " regaine d it s original meaning : something throw n i n ou r way , somethin g sensuall y encountered , with out knowin g o r expectin g it . Touch , eve n i f no t sufficientl y distin guished i n it s nuances , thu s become s a majo r sourc e o f knowin g th e world. I n hi s treatmen t o f touch , Herde r wen t fa r beyon d wha t th e eighteenth centur y ha d t o say , bu t i n essenc e h e continue d a n inherite d trend o f thought . Vision an d touch , th e sense s tha t ar e th e source s o f th e tw o basi c arts o f paintin g an d sculpture , thes e Herde r juxtapose s i n variou s respects. W e hav e alread y see n tha t line s an d color s appea l t o vision , shapes an d bodie s t o touch . Bu t Herde r goe s furthe r an d dwell s wit h particular emphasi s o n tw o additiona l aspects . First , visio n make s u s perceive a dematehahzed world, an d i t i s therefor e o f particula r affinit y to th e worl d o f phenomena , o f bodiles s appearance . " A bod y tha t w e would neve r experienc e a s suc h b y touc h . . . woul d remai n t o u s forever a handl e o f Saturn , a slin g o f Jupiter , i.e . a phenomenon , a n apparation. Th e ophtalmi t wit h a thousand eyes , without a feel, withou t a touchin g hand , wil l al l hi s lif e remai n i n Plato' s cave " (p . 244) . Th e dematerialized representatio n doe s no t evok e rea l reactions . Yo u d o no t wish t o gras p th e radian t imag e (p . 247) . Becaus e image s lac k materia l reality, Herde r believes , visio n is "th e mos t artificial , th e mos t philo sophical sense. " (p . 2^0) . N o wonde r therefor e tha t th e ar t base d o n vision, tha t is , painting , share s wit h it s sensua l origi n it s philosophical , ultimately unreal , character . The two-dimensionalit y o f painting , an d o f vision , reveal s tha t it s reality i s incomplete . "Tha t a statu e ca n b e seen , nobod y ha s doubted ; but ca n on e determin e fro m visio n wha t i s a beautifu l shape ? . . . Thi s one canno t onl y doubt , bu t outrightl y deny " (p . 2^1) . Vision , h e late r says, "destroy s th e beautifu l statu e instea d o f creatin g it " (p . 2^2) . 167

Modern Theories of Art The seein g ey e i s oppose d b y th e touchin g hand , an d i t i s t o th e feeling, touchin g han d tha t th e fullnes s o f realit y open s up . Thi s i s a general huma n trait , an d i t ca n b e see n i n al l stage s o f life . "Com e int o the child' s playroom, " Herde r addresse s hi s reader , "an d watc h ho w the littl e empirica l creatur e seizes , grasps , takes , weighs , touches , mea sures wit h hi s han d an d feet , i n orde r t o acquir e fo r himsel f faithfull y and securel y th e heavy , first an d necessar y concept s o f bodies , figures, magnitude, space , distance " (p . 24^) . What i s impenetrability, hardness , smoothness, form , shape , roundness—o f al l thi s th e ey e canno t tel l you much , o f thi s yo u lear n fro m "th e grasping , touchin g hand " (p . 24^). Wha t yo u ca n lear n fro m th e han d i s th e "tangibl e truth. " Whil e vision destroy s th e statue , touc h revive s it . Th e introver t love r wh o apparently wander s aroun d a statu e o r a colum n aimlessl y experience s its beautifu l roun d shape . "Hi s eye s becom e hands , th e ligh t ra y a finger. . . . Th e statu e live s . . . i t speaks , no t a s i f h e woul d (only ) se e it, bu t a s i f he woul d fee l an d touc h it . A column coldl y describe d give s us a s little ide a a s painte d music ; better le t i t stan d an d g o on " (p . 2^3) . Sculpture, bor n o f touch , i s abl e t o captur e i n a singl e statu e th e ful l reality o f th e objec t represented . The antithesi s betwee n paintin g an d sculpture , o r visio n an d touch , is state d i n a n aphorism : "I n visio n ther e i s drea m [tha t is , a lac k o f al l reality], i n touc h ther e i s truth" (p . 247) . Here i t ma y b e wort h ou r whil e t o sto p fo r a momen t an d loo k a t Herder's source s o r predecessor s fo r thi s particula r comparison . Ho w does h e relat e t o thes e forerunners ? Th e compariso n betwee n th e arts , I nee d hardl y repeat , i s a venerabl e topic , on e tha t surface s a t severa l stages o f Europea n intellectua l history . Th e best-know n versio n i s probably th e literar y genr e tha t th e Italia n Renaissanc e calle d paragone. For ou r purpos e i t wil l b e sufficien t t o remin d th e reade r o f th e mos t famous Renaissanc e tex t i n th e paragone literature , Leonard o d a Vinci' s notes concernin g th e compariso n o f th e arts . Leonardo , too , base s th e arts o n ou r senses , thoug h h e i s not a s systemati c an d consisten t i n thi s respect a s Herder . Bu t fo r him , too , paintin g follow s fro m vision , an d music fro m hearing . Bu t her e som e interestin g difference s betwee n Leonardo an d Herde r strik e th e carefu l student . Fo r Leonardo , th e major confrontatio n i s tha t betwee n painting , o n th e on e hand , an d 168

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts poetry an d music , o n th e other , tha t is , betwee n th e ar t o f spatia l simultaneity an d th e art s o f tempora l succession . Sculptur e occupie s a rather margina l plac e i n Leonardo' s thought . Ho w doe s h e compar e i t with painting ? "After paintin g come s sculpture, " say s Leonard , " a ver y valuabl e art , but i t i s no t produce d b y mind s o f suc h excellenc e a s i s painting. " H e goes o n t o mentio n th e aspect s i n whic h paintin g excels , an d whic h ar e altogether absen t i n sculpture . Thes e ar e perspectiv e an d shadow . I n both respects , th e statu e i s just a n object , lik e an y othe r materia l object , and th e artis t doe s no t hav e t o creat e anything ; natur e hersel f help s him. 17 "Th e first marve l tha t appear s i n paintin g i s that i t appear s t o b e detached fro m th e wall . . . . I n compariso n wit h this , th e sculpto r creates hi s work s s o tha t the y appea r a s the y are " (#£4) . A statue , produced b y natur e an d man , belong s i n greate r par t t o natur e (#£0) . Without goin g int o detail , w e ca n sa y tha t Leonard o conceive s o f sculpture a s being , i n som e respects , close r t o natur e tha n i s painting . In thi s respect , ther e i s a certai n affinit y betwee n hi m an d Herder . Th e appreciation o f th e fac t ma y b e quit e different : t o Leonard o i t i s a reason fo r criticism , t o Herde r a reaso n fo r praise ; o n th e fac t itsel f they agree . Another distinctio n betwee n paintin g an d sculptur e tha t Leonard o mentions i s o f a socia l nature . Paintin g i s a "libera l art, " sculptur e a "mechanical art " (#49ff) ; whil e a paintin g i s produce d b y "menta l analysis," a statue i s produced wit h grea t physica l effort , causin g "phys ical fatigue " ( # £ i ) ; th e sculpto r sweats , h e i s covere d wit h past e an d powder, h e look s lik e a baker ; th e painte r work s i n th e quie t o f hi s workshop, wearin g hi s fine clothes . O f thi s socia l distinction , i t shoul d be noted , nothin g survive s i n Herder . Herder's furthe r distinctio n betwee n paintin g an d sculpture , contin uing o f cours e hi s distinctio n betwee n visio n an d touch , i s i n som e o f what i t proclaim s eve n mor e problemati c tha n th e first one . Part s o f the argumen t ca n easil y b e criticize d an d refute d o n th e basi s o f well established fact s an d stylisti c analysis. However , i n the intellectua l worl d of Herder an d hi s time thi s second distinctio n wa s of profound symboli c significance, an d i t provide s a n importan t insigh t int o th e though t o f that formativ e stag e i n moder n notion s o f art . 169

Modern Theories of Art Herder no t onl y ask s wha t dimension s o f realit y th e differen t sense s and art s ar e abl e t o capture ; h e als o wishe s t o establis h an d describ e their particula r mode s o f being . H e thu s distinguishe s amon g thre e modes o f artisti c being , or , a s h e call s them , thre e "specie s o f beauty. " "Parts nex t t o eac h othe r resul t i n a surface ; on e afte r anothe r are , most purel y an d mos t simply , th e tones ; part s a t on e an d th e sam e time, nex t t o eac h other , on e int o another , altogether , ar e bodie s o r shapes" (p . 2$j). xs Th e distinction , then , i s betwee n surface , tone , an d body, or , i f yo u wish , betwee n painting , musi c (o r poetry) , an d sculp ture. Thes e ar e th e border s natur e hersel f ha s devised , the y shoul d no t be transgressed , an d th e art s roote d i n eac h o f th e individua l mode s should no t b e confused . " A musi c tha t paints , an d a paintin g tha t sounds, a sculptur e tha t dyes , an d a depictio n tha t wishe s t o carv e i n stone, thes e ar e degeneration s tha t wil l remai n withou t impac t o r tha t will hav e a false impact " (p . 2^7) . Now, th e ar t o f th e surface , painting , i s th e ar t o f simultaneity , o f "one nex t t o th e other. " I n makin g thi s statement , Herde r als o make s the taci t assumptio n tha t i t i s discrete units , wel l distinguished , tha t ar e placed nex t t o eac h othe r o n th e pictur e surface . I n othe r words , whe n speaking o f painting , Herde r ha s a specifi c styl e i n mind , tha t which , following Woelfflin , w e woul d cal l th e "linea r style. " In tha t style , i t i s true, outlin e plays a centra l part , th e component s o f th e compositio n are wel l define d i n themselves , shar p boundarie s ar e a n essentia l consti tutive element . Needles s t o say , Herde r her e disregard s styl e o f a different character . Sculpture, Herde r thinks , work s o n a mode l othe r tha n tha t o f painting. Boundarie s canno t b e sharply define d i n th e statue : "Sculptur e works [surfaces ] int o on e another " (2^8) . Th e touchin g han d canno t clearly distinguis h betwee n adjacen t parts , th e surface s ar e continuousl y transformed int o on e another . I n sculpture , Herde r says , "on e i s all, and al l ar e onl y one " (p . 2^9) . Herder her e come s clos e t o applyin g t o th e visua l art s a notio n tha t was t o b e amon g hi s most importan t contribution s t o aestheti c thought , the notio n o f "organicism. " A wor k o f art , aestheti c organicis m as sumes, ma y b e compare d t o a livin g organism . Thoug h th e wor k displays a great wealt h o f subtl e distinction s and , i n fact , n o par t i s ful l 170

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts identical wit h an y other , n o par t o f th e work ca n b e full y separate d from th e rest , n o definit e limi t ca n b e se t t o it . Herder , i t ha s bee n claimed, wa s th e first critic t o mak e us e o f th e concep t o f organi c for m in practica l criticism . I think w e ca n tak e on e ste p furthe r an d sa y tha t this i s als o tru e o f hi s attitud e t o th e visua l arts . Her e sculptur e i s th e full embodimen t o f organi c form . I t i s an art in which on e for m o r part is graduall y transforme d int o th e other ; w e canno t indicat e th e limi t that separate s on e for m fro m th e next . Eve n wher e material s o f a n altogether differen t natur e ar e portrayed—fo r instance , th e huma n body an d th e draper y coverin g it—th e distinctio n betwee n the m i s often obscured . Her e Herde r adduces the Greeks who made dress reveal rather tha n hid e th e shap e o f th e bod y wearin g it , th e so-calle d u wet drapery" (h e use s th e ter m nasse Gewander, p . 267) , an d thi s particula r device seem s t o hi m symboli c o f th e natur e o f sculptur e i n general.

II. RECONSTRUCTIN G TH E UNIT Y O F TH E ART S The question s raise d b y Lessin g and Herder , as well a s the answer s the y provided, clearl y illustrate , I hope , on e o f th e centra l processe s tha t dominated though t o n ar t i n th e las t thir d o f th e eighteent h century . That proces s wa s o f crucia l consequenc e fo r aestheti c reflectio n i n th e two centurie s following ; w e clearl y fee l it s impac t i n th e idea s pu t forward an d debate d i n ou r ow n day . I n th e eighteent h century , i t wa s a proces s i n whic h th e notio n o f one art—comprisin g al l medi a o f artistic expression—wa s broke n u p int o a multitude o f individua l arts . The ga p betwee n on e ar t an d anothe r wa s widened . The art s wer e shown t o b e o f a n altogethe r differen t structure , roote d i n differen t dimensions o f experience (space , time) , and, finally, addressing differen t senses. Eve n whe n w e disregar d wha t th e humanist s calle d "poetry " and concentrate ou r attention o n th e mimeti c art s in the visua l domain , we stil l encounte r a cleavage, a n abyss tha t seem s t o remai n unbridgea ble. Herde r showe d tha t paintin g an d sculptur e originate d i n differen t areas of human experienc e an d addressed differen t senses . Coul d al l th e arts still b e see n a s forming on e comprehensiv e untiy ? Was thi s no t th e end of th e doctrine claimin g tha t all th e art s hang together ? 171

Modern Theories of Art To artists , writers , an d critic s aroun d 180 0 thi s conclusio n seeme d unacceptable. T o b e sure , eve n the y knew—a s w e nowaday s kno w much better—tha t fro m Lessin g an d Herder , an d fro m th e critica l movement the y initiated , a grea t dea l coul d b e learne d abou t th e specific natur e o f eac h individua l art , abou t th e kin d o f problem s encountered i n creatin g work s o f poetr y an d music , sculptur e an d painting, and , mos t important , abou t ou r experiencin g work s o f ar t carried ou t i n thes e differen t media . Bu t wha t seeme d t o b e th e resul t of tha t process—th e breakin g u p o f th e grea t organi c unit y o f ar t int o different techniques—coul d no t b e accepte d a s th e final messag e o f a profound an d long-lastin g concer n wit h th e problem . Th e individua l arts coul d no t remai n altogethe r separate d fro m eac h other , isolate d and scattere d fragment s neve r agai n t o b e connected . Th e mor e th e unique characte r o f a n individua l ar t becam e manifest , th e mor e strongl y the nee d wa s fel t t o lin k i t wit h another , equall y unique , art . A way ha d to b e foun d t o reconstruc t a n overal l unit y o f th e arts . Thi s wa s th e psychological origi n o f th e grea t system s o f aesthetic s tha t full y domi nated th e though t o f th e nex t generation . I nee d no t wast e man y word s i n convincin g th e reade r tha t a renewed puttin g togethe r o f th e art s coul d no t possibl y mea n th e re storation o f the—perhap s naive—belie f tha t al l th e art s are , i n fact , one an d th e sam e creativ e entity . Th e lesso n taugh t b y th e genera tion o f Lessin g an d Herde r coul d no t b e s o easil y forgotten . Th e one , universal grea t ar t tha t th e Renaissanc e bequeathe d t o ensuin g period s was spli t int o th e art s o f tim e an d th e art s o f space ; i t becam e obviou s what th e art s o f spac e ca n an d canno t do , a s th e abilitie s an d inabilitie s of th e art s o f tim e als o becam e manifest . Eve n withi n th e art s o f spac e a chas m wa s opene d u p betwee n th e ar t tha t addresse s visio n an d th e art tha t addresse s touch . Wha t ha d bee n learne d fro m th e Laocoon an d from Plastik coul d no t jus t b e forgotten . I f onc e agai n th e art s wer e t o be linke d t o eac h other , thi s coul d no t b e achieve d b y obscurin g th e borders separatin g on e fro m th e other , o r b y blurrin g th e distinc t character o f each . I t wa s fel t tha t th e art s shoul d b e linke d o n th e basi s of thei r ver y variety ; a system o f th e distinc t art s wa s required . The ag e o f th e grea t system s tha t wa s approachin g containe d man y attempts t o answe r thes e questions . I n th e followin g page s I shal l 172

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts adduce tw o suc h attempts , bot h fro m th e generatio n followin g tha t o f Lessing an d Herder . The system s I propos e t o surve y establis h thei r theoretical construction s o n totall y differen t bases . Nevertheles s the y may b e linke d i n presentation : on e o f the m open s th e brie f perio d o f intensive searc h fo r a syste m o f th e arts ; th e othe r i s th e outcome — many woul d say , th e final result—of thes e searche s an d conclude s th e creative phas e o f system buildin g i n th e theor y o f th e arts. I. SCHLEGE L

Our first document i s a series o f lectures delivere d b y the Germa n poet , critic, an d scholar Augus t Wilhel m Schlege l (1767-184^ ) a t th e Univer sity o f Jena, preserve d mainl y i n th e note s o f a gifted student , Friedric h Ast, wh o wa s t o becom e a leadin g Platonis t an d aestheti c philosophe r of th e earl y nineteent h century . Thoug h SchlegeP s lecture s wer e pub lished unde r th e titl e Philosophische Kunstlehre (Philosophica l Doctrine s o f Art), they ar e in fact devote d mainl y t o a discussion o f poetry an d som e other form s o f literature . The nonliterar y art s pla y onl y a minor , marginal par t i n Schlegel' s thought . Nevertheless , wha t h e say s i n th e few page s devote d t o th e visua l art s allow s u s t o detec t th e outline s o f a system comprisin g al l th e arts , a system base d o n a clear principle . I n the followin g observation s I shal l disregar d th e detaile d discussio n o f poetry t o concentrat e o n th e syste m a s a whole, it s principle , an d wha t it say s abou t th e visua l arts . Unfortunately , Schlege l nowher e formu lated hi s principle , an d I shal l therefor e hav e t o pu t i t forwar d i n m y own words . Schlegel want s t o establis h a "natura l histor y o f art." 19 B y th e en d of th e eighteent h century , "natura l history " wa s a popula r term . I t meant th e singlin g ou t an d recordin g o f th e essentia l stage s o f a development. "History " withou t an y furthe r qualifications—t o pu t i t simplistically—means mainl y th e recordin g o f individua l events , an d these, superficiall y a t least, d o no t see m t o follo w b y necessity fro m an y underlying structure . "Natura l history, " o n th e othe r hand , lay s bar e fundamental structure , an d show s th e necessity , o r law , b y whic h on e stage follows th e other . A "natural histor y o f art," says Schlegel , canno t be derive d fro m historica l experienc e only . Experience—tha t is , th e 173

Modern Theories of Art consideration o f concret e events—ca n explai n onl y wha t happen s b y chance (p . 8) . Natura l histor y i s mean t t o explai n wha t follow s o f necessity, th e ver y law s governin g th e stage s o f th e unfoldin g o f a process. It i s interesting t o not e tha t a t thi s earl y stag e Schlege l seem s t o hav e suggested a methodology tha t wil l remin d th e moder n reade r o f anthro pological procedures . "Wha t i s her e calle d natura l histor y o f art, " w e read, ma y b e see n historically , tha t is , as a successio n o f stage s remem bered an d narrated , bu t i t ma y als o b e see n sprea d ou t simultaneously . There ar e ne w peoples , "people s o f child - an d a t th e mos t youth-age, " says a n earl y commentato r o n Schlege l (p . 7 n . 16) . Lik e a goo d anthropologist, h e believe s tha t wha t w e observ e i n primitiv e people s o f today i s an analog y o f earlie r period s o f history . Schlegel himsel f say s tha t th e concep t o f a "natura l histor y o f art " i s an "expositio n an d explanatio n o f th e necessar y origin s o f ar t i n th e particular existenc e an d th e natura l environmen t o f man" (p . 7). Behin d this rathe r genera l clai m th e distinctiv e natur e o f SchlegeP s mode l ma y be felt . Le t u s pu t thi s i n a moder n formulation : Th e mode l i s ma n himself. Th e origina l mediu m o f artisti c creatio n i s ma n himself , hi s gestures, sounds , an d words . Th e origina l manifestation s o f th e huma n drive t o artisti c creatio n ar e no t symbol s o r arbitrar y forms , echoe s th e commentator (p . 8 , n . 19) . No r wa s th e origina l wor k o f ar t though t out i n advance . "Th e origina l poems, " Schlege l says , "wer e inspire d b y a real , presen t emotion. " Tha t emotion , o r passion , "wa s to o tempes tuous t o permi t a pruden t preparation , an d i t di d no t nee d it " (p . 33) . A crucial not e i s here struck , a note tha t wa s t o resoun d wit h increasin g force i n th e nineteent h an d twentiet h centuries . A n importan t myt h o f our moder n ag e begin s t o stan d ou t agains t a historical background : th e original artis t create d th e primeva l wor k o f ar t i n a kin d o f trance , i n a paroxysm o f overwhelmin g emotions . Th e artis t begin s t o b e altogethe r detached fro m th e worksho p tradition ; a s wit h premeditation , th e "work" thu s create d literall y nee d no t g o beyon d th e artis t himself . "All th e art s th e instrument s o f whic h ar e externa l t o ma n suppos e physical observatio n an d a n arbitrar y ac t o f evaluation " (p . 9) . Here , i n these fragmentar y remarks , a syste m o f th e art s i s foreshadowed . Ma n is no t onl y th e produce r o f art , h e i s also—t o a certain , changin g 174

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts extent—the mediu m i n whic h th e wor k i s carrie d out . Th e close r a n art i s t o m a n — s o i t follows—th e mor e authenti c i t is ; th e furthe r removed fro m man—hi s body , hi s voice , hi s movements—th e mor e artificial, th e les s primeva l i t is . Schlege l i s o f cours e awar e tha t eve n the mos t authenti c art s canno t d o withou t som e element s o f arbitrar y shaping. Thu s h e know s tha t th e huma n voic e i s pu t t o threefol d use : shouting, singing , speaking. Shoutin g i s fully instinctive , it lacks arbitrar iness. Singing , however , woul d no t b e wha t i t i s withou t a n arbitrar y structuring o f th e sound s produce d b y man . Speaking , finally, i s a n activity employin g symbol s an d conventions . Tak e awa y th e symboli c and conventiona l feature s fro m language , an d ther e will b e n o speech . The visua l arts , a s w e hav e jus t said , playe d onl y a margina l par t i n SchlegePs thought . Ye t wha t h e say s i n th e fe w page s devote d t o thi s subject i s ofte n unexpecte d an d anticipate s certai n notion s tha t hav e achieved broa d popularit y i n th e moder n world . I shall disregar d Schle gePs interestin g discussio n o f whethe r o r no t architectur e belong s t o the visua l art s (pp . 227-233) , and shal l concentrat e onl y o n wha t h e ha s to sa y abou t paintin g an d sculpture . Hi s view s ar e wort h consideratio n not onl y becaus e the y ar e crucia l t o th e emergenc e o f modern aesthetic s but als o fo r wha t the y contribut e t o present-da y discussions . Painting an d sculptur e ar e o f cours e conceive d a s havin g a great dea l in common , an d th e great master s o f th e Renaissance , a s Schlegel point s out, hav e show n thi s i n practice . Bu t t o hi s wa y o f thinking , sculptur e occupies a mor e importan t place . Sculpture , i n hi s definition , i s th e ar t that create s "form s an d figures tha t ca n b e viewe d fro m al l sides , tha t do no t appea r singly " (p . 238) . In othe r words , sculptur e i s th e ar t tha t shapes three-dimensiona l bodies . On e perceive s th e ech o o f Herder' s doctrine whe n on e read s tha t i n a statu e th e border s o f th e plane s ar e fluid, tha t surface s canno t b e sharpl y defined . T o kno w a statu e yo u must undertak e a lon g proces s o f experiencin g it . Thi s ide a ma y b e behind SchlegeP s claim—a t first glanc e surprising—tha t sculptur e "eternalizes movement " (p . 239) . The "form s an d figures" produce d b y th e sculpto r ca n b e of differen t types. Schlege l anticipate s twentieth-centur y though t whe n h e say s tha t the form s shape d b y th e sculpto r ca n b e eithe r "organic " o r "mathe matical" (pp . 233—234) . Whe n "organic " form s ar e produced , th e US

Modern Theories of Art model i s take n fro m th e worl d o f livin g bodies . Gree k sculptur e ha s shown wha t th e organi c bod y ca n mea n t o th e artist , bot h a s a direc t model t o b e imitate d an d a s a comprehensive principle . Th e livin g bod y dominates Gree k ar t i n al l it s manifestations . Eve n lifeles s matte r i s informed b y th e organi c principle . Whe n th e Gree k artis t show s drape d figures, th e fold s o f th e clot h follo w th e organi c form s o f th e bod y an d manifest, rathe r tha n obscure , it s structure . Eve n heav y stuf f become s a carrier o f th e organi c spiri t pervadin g Gree k art . The othe r typ e o f for m int o whic h three-dimensiona l object s ma y b e cast Schlege l call s "mathematical. " Onc e again , th e studen t canno t bu t regret tha t ou r autho r nowher e define d wha t h e mean t b y tha t term . Carefully readin g th e rathe r fe w an d brie f observation s h e make s o n th e subject, on e canno t hel p concludin g tha t h e di d no t hav e precisel y mathematics i n mind. Wha t h e calls "mathematical" w e woul d probabl y term "abstract. " Mathematica l form s ar e se t apar t fro m al l othe r form s by thei r origin : the y ar e no t derive d fro m regula r experience , the y ar e not collecte d fro m th e outsid e world . I t i s thei r signatur e tha t ma n himself—more specifically , hi s mind—i s thei r origin . I t i s characteris tic o f th e mathematica l for m tha t "th e mode l i s take n purel y fro m th e human mind. " W e spea k her e o f "regula r form s th e huma n min d itsel f constructs" (p . 234) . T o b e sure , Schlege l als o ha s somethin g t o sa y about th e characte r o f th e form s themselves . The y ar e straigh t an d angular an d "manifes t expediency. " A moder n reader , use d t o th e present-day vocabular y o f artisti c terms , woul d immediatel y thin k o f "functional." N o wonder , then , tha t mathematica l form s ca n bes t b e observed i n tools . I t i s i n tool s tha t bot h th e expedienc y an d th e calculability o f mathematica l form s i s mos t obvious . Bu t i n followin g SchlegePs though t on e ca n see , I believe , tha t th e majo r characteristi c of mathematica l form s i s not th e characte r o f th e actua l form s (angular ity, calculability , expediency ) bu t rathe r thei r origi n i n th e min d alone . In juxtaposin g organi c an d mathematica l forms , Schlege l want s t o map ou t th e essentia l possibilities , o r options , facin g th e artist . Usin g the languag e o f lat e eighteenth-centur y Germa n philosophy , w e shoul d say tha t h e i s constructin g a system . Bu t i n fac t h e als o use d thi s juxtaposition o f forms take n fro m externa l natur e an d other s originatin g purely i n th e min d i n orde r t o detec t an d outlin e th e directio n o f a 176

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts historical development . Onc e more , h e make s onl y a brief observation , but i t i s one tha t i s wel l wort h ou r carefu l attention , particularl y i n th e light o f recen t discussions . Schlegel i s concerne d wit h discussing , i n mos t genera l terms , th e direction i n whic h Gree k sculptur e unfolded . H e accept s th e three stage mode l o f thi s developmen t that , w e ar e accustomed t o describin g by th e term s "archaic, " "classical, " an d "late " o r Hellenistic . "Gree k sculpture," Schlege l observes , "wen t th e grea t systemati c course " (p . 238). Wha t i s the characteristi c o f th e ar t of th e earl y stage, th e on e w e call "archaic" ? The humanisti c tradition , whic h stil l hel d swa y i n Schle gel's time , kne w littl e o f archai c art . Winckelman n explicitl y tell s hi s readers20 tha t h e ha d neve r see n an y piec e o f sculptur e produce d a t this earl y age . Th e humanists ' attitud e t o th e archai c ag e wa s on e o f principle, an d i t wa s base d o n th e mode l o f growt h an d decay . A n ol d tradition ha d i t tha t th e featur e characterizin g th e initia l stage s o f th e great historica l proces s i s th e inabilit y o f ar t t o d o ful l justic e t o natur e when portrayin g it . "Th e arts, " say s Vasari , starte d fro m "modes t beginnings, improvin g the m littl e b y little , unti l the y finally perfecte d them."21 Schlege l suggest s a n altogethe r differen t attitude . "Gree k sculpture," h e says , "di d no t begi n wit h a slavis h imitatio n o f nature , but instantl y graspe d th e ide a o f a huma n form , carryin g i t ou t wit h great severity , accordin g t o rul e an d systematicall y i n th e highes t degree" (p. 238) . Art doe s no t begi n wit h a n observation o f nature , an d archaic ar t i s no t lik e th e child' s fumblin g whil e h e i s assembling detail s and fragmentar y piece s o f realit y tha t eventually , i n a distan t future , will fal l int o a pattern. Whethe r o r not thi s model o f child developmen t is correct , i t canno t b e use d fo r understandin g th e histor y o f art . O n the contrary , say s Schlegel , wha t ar t begin s wit h i s a rathe r abstrac t pattern, clearly and sharply present i n the artist's mind. The earl y Greek sculptor, wh o carrie d thi s imag e i n hi s mind , als o ha d th e ability—th e acuteness o f visio n a s wel l a s th e manua l dexterity—t o carr y i t ou t i n hard stone. The secon d stag e o f tha t development , tha t is , so-called "hig h classi cal" art, i s conceive d a s a union o f th e severit y an d loftines s o f archai c art an d "th e charm s o f life " (p . 239) . I n thi s period , th e image s o f th e gods an d th e heroe s wer e th e mai n concer n o f th e artists . Schlege l 177

Modern Theories of Art describes th e expressiv e qualitie s o f thes e image s whe n h e speak s o f "calm divinity, " an d say s tha t "circumspection , self-assuredness " wer e characteristic o f them . Of th e las t perio d Schlege l ha s ver y littl e t o say ; we don' t eve n kno w whether h e ha d Hellenisti c o r Roma n ar t i n mind . W e lear n onl y tha t this wa s a perio d o f decline , an d tha t th e specifi c ar t for m i t create d was th e portrait : "onl y late, " say s Schlege l i n hi s lectures , "ar t conde scended t o th e portrait , th e beginnin g o f it s downfall. " (p . 239) . 2. HEGE L

The proces s I a m tryin g t o outlin e i n thi s chapter—th e combinin g o f the distinc t art s int o a comprehensiv e system—reache d a clima x wit h the grea t Germa n philosophe r Geor g Wilhel m Friedric h Hege l (1770 1831). Hege l i s a hurdl e equall y difficul t t o tak e o r t o evade . I n man y fields o f though t an d reflection , hi s mar k o n th e lif e o f th e moder n mind i s inescapable. This , I believe, is also tru e wit h regar d t o th e visua l arts. Perhap s th e mos t strikin g proo f o f Hegel' s "relevance, " t o us e th e contemporary can t expression , i s th e debat e ove r th e trut h o r falsit y o f his views . The ideologica l shrillnes s o f th e polemic s surroundin g Hegel' s theory i s th e bes t indicatio n tha t h e touche s a nerv e i n moder n life . I n recent decades , th e argumen t ha s bee n particularl y intense . Som e stu dents o f visua l image s hav e undertake n t o expos e th e weaknesse s i n Hegel's doctrin e an d t o poin t ou t th e danger s behin d it , thu s agai n demonstrating ho w topica l hi s though t remains , an d t o wha t a n exten t present-day reflectio n canno t avoi d havin g t o com e t o term s wit h it . But Hegel' s significanc e fo r ou r subjec t i s ofte n als o directl y acknowl edged. Recently , Erns t Gombrich , wh o ha s contribute d hi s fai r shar e o f Hegel criticis m t o th e literatur e o n art , eve n declare d tha t Hege l rathe r than Winckelman n "shoul d b e calle d th e fathe r o f ar t history." 22 In Hegel' s system , i t i s b y no w notorious , n o singl e par t ca n b e detached fro m th e whol e doctrin e an d discusse d separately . Neverthe less, I shall attemp t t o limi t m y observation s t o on e subjec t only , namel y the visua l arts . Moreover , I shal l emphasiz e on e aspec t o f tha t subject : how Hege l conceive s th e relationshi p betwee n on e ar t an d th e other . I t 178

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts is th e system of th e art s wit h whic h w e shal l her e b e concerned . Ou r main sourc e wil l b e th e Vorlesungen iiber die Aesthetik (translate d int o English a s Aesthetics: Philosophy of Fine Art), 23 thoug h i n Hegel' s case , eve n more s o tha n wit h othe r thinkers , hi s entir e oeuvr e shoul d b e take n into account . Th e Vorlesungen Uber die Aesthetik (Lectures o n Aesthetics ) were delivere d fou r time s a t th e Universit y o f Berlin (betwee n 182 0 an d 1830). The y ar e know n t o u s throug h th e reconstructio n mad e b y Hegel's devote d discipl e Hotho , who use d th e philosopher's ow n lectur e notes togethe r wit h note s take n b y som e o f th e student s wh o attende d the courses . This origin o f the tex t make s u s somewha t hesitan t t o plac e crucial emphasi s o n an y singl e formulation . O n th e whole , however , th e text bear s th e stam p o f indisputabl e authenticity . What doe s Hege l hav e t o sa y t o th e studen t o f ar t theor y an d it s history? Nobod y familia r wit h Hegel' s though t wil l b e surprise d t o find that, her e a s i n s o man y othe r fields o f reflection , th e answe r canno t b e easily given . Whil e ther e i s littl e i n hi s syste m tha t explicitl y an d directly pertain s t o ar t theor y i n th e traditiona l sens e o f tha t term , mos t of wha t h e say s ha s a n indirec t ye t essentia l bearin g o n ou r subject . In a stud y o f theorie s o f art , on e o f th e mos t importan t feature s o f Hegel's Aesthetics must b e emphasized : i t i s devote d exclusivel y t o a philosophy o f art , an d i n thi s respec t i t i s probabl y th e first wor k o f it s kind. Hege l begin s hi s lecture s b y a critiqu e o f th e ter m "aesthetics. " As w e remember , A . G . Baumgarte n gav e th e first volum e expoundin g his doctrine th e titl e Aesthetica (17^0) , but wha t h e had i n mind ha d littl e to d o wit h art . Wha t Baumgarte n i n fac t trie d t o propoun d wa s a theory o f perception , an d fo r th e notio n o f "perception " h e employe d the Gree k ter m aisthenastai (t o recognize , perceive). Were w e t o tak e th e term literally , i t woul d b e altogethe r unsuitabl e fo r wha t Hege l ha s i n mind. H e use s i t becaus e i t ha s becom e customary . Anothe r ter m ha s been suggested , h e remarks , "Kallistics " (derive d fro m th e Gree k kallos = beautiful) . Thi s term , too , i s inappropriate , an d Hegel' s rejectio n o f it i s o f importanc e i n ou r context . Th e subjec t matte r o f hi s theor y i s not th e Beautifu l a s such . Wha t h e i s concerne d wit h i s Art . Hi s "Aesthetics" is , a s h e explicitl y says , a philosoph y o f art , or , i n hi s words, a philosoph y o f fine arts . H e therefor e exclude s th e beaut y o f 179

Modern Theories of Art nature fro m hi s consideration . Th e beaut y o f ar t i s a beaut y u born o f the spirit.' ^ Th e wor k o f art , h e say s later , i s no t a produc t o f nature , but o f human activity ; i t i s produced fo r man ; and i t ha s its goal withi n itself.24 Concentrating o n ar t a s a huma n activity , o n th e wor k o f ar t a s a man-made object , i s essential , bu t i t i s no t sufficient . I n actua l life , works o f art ofte n fulfil l differen t functions . The y ma y serve t o decorat e our environment , the y ma y be intende d t o provid e u s with pleasure . I n performing thes e functions , ar t i s not wha t Hege l ha s in mind ; i t i s not "free art, " i t doe s no t bea r it s purpos e i n itself . Suc h declaration s should no t mislea d u s int o reckonin g Hege l amon g th e philosopher s o f "Part pou r Part, " o f "ar t fo r art' s sake. " H e i s no t a thinke r wh o considers ar t a self-enclose d domain . I t i s HegeP s basi c assumption — one tha t follow s fro m th e centra l idea s o f his philosophica l syste m a s a whole—that ar t an d religio n hav e th e sam e essentia l substanc e an d subject matter ; the y diffe r fro m eac h othe r onl y i n form . Art , h e says , "has first o f al l t o mak e th e Divin e th e focu s o f it s representations." 25 Art i s free, an d i t i s altogether tru e ar t onl y whe n i t full y devote s itsel f to thi s suprem e task , th e articulatio n o f th e Divine . I t i s precisel y because ar t is concerned wit h th e most basi c issues of man that differen t nations hav e embodie d thei r mos t substantia l intuition s an d menta l views i n work s o f art. 26 The grea t religion s themselves , Hege l wa s full y aware , hav e no t always acknowledge d thei r kinshi p wit h art . Som e o f th e grea t faith s openly displa y hostilit y t o artisti c endeavo r an d artisti c production . Judaism an d Isla m are , of course , th e best-know n example s o f suc h a n attitude, bu t Hege l als o mentions th e iconoclastic movemen t tha t shoo k the foundation s o f Easter n Christendom , an d th e Protestan t hostilit y t o images tha t impresse d itsel f o n th e cultur e an d though t o f th e moder n West. I n spit e o f thes e weighty , sometime s eve n violent , rejection s o f art b y certai n religions , Hege l doe s no t doub t tha t withi n religio n a s such th e basis fo r image s i s to be found . To b e sure, "th e Divine , explicitl y regarde d a s unity an d universality , is essentiall y presen t onl y t o thinkin g and , a s i n itsel f imageless , i s no t susceptible o f bein g image d an d shape d b y imagination. " Ye t h e con tinues: 180

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts Nevertheless, on th e other hand , however far unit y and universalit y are th e characteristics o f the Divine , the Divine nevertheless i s essentially determinat e in itself , an d sinc e i t therefor e disencumber s itsel f o f abstractness , i t resign s itself t o pictoria l representatio n an d visualization . I f no w i t i s seize d i n it s determinate form an d displayed pictorially by imagination, there at once enters a multiplicity o f determinations, and here alone is the beginning of the prope r sphere of ideal art. 27 What i s th e meanin g o f thi s statement ? Le t u s disregar d th e meta physical terminolog y an d instea d loo k fo r th e though t behin d it s strang e and possibl y obscur e wording . Wha t i s o f significanc e fo r ou r presen t purpose is , first, tha t ar t i s no t merel y som e kin d o f decoration , bu t rather follow s fro m th e innermos t structur e an d lif e o f th e Divine . Second, an d mor e importan t fo r th e moder n student , i s th e locatio n o f art i n HegeP s intellectua l chart . Art , an d particularl y th e image , dwel l in th e domai n o f tensio n tha t extend s betwee n th e pur e notion , neces sarily devoi d o f an y imag e an d materia l realization , an d th e objectifica tion o f th e ide a i n materia l substanc e an d sensor y experience . We encounte r her e th e symbo l a s th e centra l proble m o f Hegel' s thought o n art . Throughou t th e Aesthetics, he deal s wit h symbo l an d symbolism, whethe r o r no t h e use s thes e particula r terms . Disregardin g his terminology , w e ca n sa y tha t h e consider s ar t a s a whol e a s symbolism. Th e symbo l i s th e mediatio n betwee n th e invisibl e an d visible, min d an d matter . Beaut y i s symbolic . Hegel' s famou s definitio n of th e beautifu l a s "th e sensor y appearanc e [o r manifestation ] o f th e idea"—"das sinnlich e Scheine n de r Idee"—coul d b e translate d b y th e statement: th e beautifu l i s symbolic . S o i s art . In th e Introductio n t o the Aesthetics, wher e h e first suggest s th e ide a o f "fre e art, " h e paint s a metaphysical canva s o f ho w th e Spirit , breakin g apar t though t an d matter i n it s unfolding , i s abl e t o hea l th e breach . "I t generate s ou t o f itself work s o f fine ar t a s th e first reconcilin g middl e ter m betwee n pure though t an d wha t i s merel y external , sensuous , an d transient , between natur e an d finite realit y an d th e infinit e freedo m o f conceptua l thinking." 28 Ther e i s a n intrinsi c affinit y betwee n th e tw o halve s i n th e work o f art . I n th e chapte r o n symboli c ar t t o whic h w e shal l presentl y return, Hege l say s tha t th e symbo l i s als o a sig n ("da s Symbo l i s zunachst ei n Zeichen" ) an d the n goe s o n t o distinguis h betwee n th e 181

Modern Theories of Art symbolic an d semioti c functions . Ther e i s n o doub t a s t o wher e i n thi s dichotomy ar t i s situated : u When symbo l i s take n a s a mer e sig n wit h such a n indifferenc e betwee n meanin g an d it s expression , w e ma y no t take accoun t o f i t i n referenc e t o art , sinc e ar t a s such consist s precisel y in th e kinship , relation , an d concret e interpenetratio n o f meanin g an d

shape."29

The secon d par t o f th e Aesthetics i s calle d "Developmen t o f th e Idea l into Particula r Form s o f Art," a title tha t i n itsel f indicate s th e historica l bent o f th e philosopher' s thought . I n HegeP s monumenta l work , how ever, w e ar e no t face d wit h a regula r histor y o f th e arts , no t eve n o f the Winckelmannia n type . Hege l trie s t o discove r meaning s withi n th e unfolding historica l proces s itself . The proces s i s not simpl y recorded , i t is interpreted . Th e fundamenta l conceptua l structur e withi n whic h thi s interpretation i s carrie d ou t i s mad e u p o f th e thre e majo r ar t form s that correspon d t o th e thre e stage s o f th e historica l unfoldin g o f th e arts. Hege l call s thes e thre e ar t form s "symbolic, " "classic, " an d "ro mantic." Th e doctrin e o f th e ar t forms—bot h a s a comprehensiv e principle fo r patternin g th e histor y o f th e arts , an d i n th e specifi c characterization o f eac h individua l "form"—ma y wel l prov e t o b e hi s most interestin g an d lastin g contributio n t o th e theor y o f th e arts , particularly o f th e visua l arts . I n th e followin g observations , I shal l b e concerned wit h th e ar t form s only . At first, th e theor y o f th e ar t form s seem s a dramatic departur e fro m the traditiona l attitude s t o studyin g art , a tru e revolutio n i n artisti c reflection. Whe n considere d i n th e ful l articulatio n an d systemati c shap e it assume s i n th e Aesthetics, the doctrin e ma y indee d approac h th e revolutionary. Ye t i n buildin g u p thi s theory , Hege l wa s drawin g o n several intellectua l traditions , mainl y ar t theorie s curren t i n hi s time . A glance a t hi s sources , a t th e historica l contex t o f th e Aesthetik, ma y hel p us t o bette r understan d wha t h e say s abou t th e ar t form s themselves . The categorie s o f th e classica l an d th e modern , o r post-classica l (what Hege l call s "romantic") , ar e o f cours e wel l know n fro m tha t long-standing debat e th e Querelle des anciens et des modernes, whic h playe d such a n importan t par t i n th e intellectua l lif e o f th e seventeent h an d eighteenth centuries . A s w e hav e seen, 30 i n lat e seventeenth-centur y France, th e Querelle wa s a centra l topi c i n theorie s o f painting . I n lat e 182

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts eighteenth-century German y i t wa s les s significan t fo r reflectio n o n th e visual arts , bu t i t playe d a majo r par t i n theorie s o f literature . Som e o f the mos t importan t mind s o f tha t period , amon g the m Lessin g an d Schiller, too k par t i n th e attempt s t o describ e th e meanin g an d charac ter o f "ancient " an d "modern." 31 Thi s polarity , then , belonge d t o th e familiar intellectua l coinage s o f th e time . In Hegel' s thought , however , th e dualis m i s transforme d int o a tripartite system ; t o th e polarit y o f ancien t an d moder n ("romantic") , he add s a n initia l category , o r stage , th e pre-classical . H e call s thi s th e "symbolic" ar t form . Thi s categor y seem s altogethe r new , bu t close r inspection show s tha t eve n her e Hege l wa s no t creatin g somethin g ou t of nothing . Thoug h th e origin s o f th e concep t "symboli c ar t form " ar e not a s obviou s a s thos e o f th e tw o othe r ar t forms , the y ar e present . We shal l not , o f course , her e trac e thos e origin s i n ful l (i n th e chapte r on Symbolis m w e shal l hav e t o mak e som e observation s o n th e subject) ; we shal l onl y briefl y indicat e som e majo r contexts . Hegel accept s Winckelmann' s characterizatio n o f Gree k antiquit y a s a clima x o f artisti c development . Gree k ar t wa s a n instant—neve r t o recur—in whic h th e idea l attaine d ful l realization . Bu t precisel y be cause Gree k ar t i s s o perfect , i t cannot , i n ou r philosopher' s view , b e the beginnin g o f th e historica l process . Gree k ar t wa s no t miraculousl y given a s a divin e revelation , complet e an d perfec t fro m th e ver y first moment o f it s appearance . I t emerge d i n a process ; ther e mus t hav e been precedin g stages . Thos e earl y period s ar e combine d int o th e concept o f th e "symbolic " stag e o r ar t form . The generatio n o f Hegel' s teacher s wa s attracte d b y th e treasure s and mysterie s o f th e ancien t East . Thu s Herde r wa s profoundl y inter ested i n pre-Greek , Orienta l ar t an d mythology . Hi s studie s o f biblica l poetry quickl y becam e famous . I n hi s grea t work , Contributions to the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (17 84— 1791), h e devote s a n extende d discussion t o th e culture s o f th e Fa r Eas t (Boo k XI ) an d th e Nea r Eas t (XII). Friedric h Creuzer , t o who m w e shal l rever t i n th e nex t chapter , tried t o decod e th e mythologie s o f pre-Gree k cultures. 33 Th e Indologi cal researche s o f Friedric h Schlegel 34 lef t thei r mar k o n th e nineteenth century pictur e o f worl d culture . I hav e mentione d onl y som e o f th e mos t prominen t essay s pertinen t 183

Modern Theories of Art to ou r presen t theme . The y sho w tha t sinc e th e las t decade s o f th e eighteenth century , Germa n poets , thinkers , an d student s ha d becom e increasingly awar e o f th e pre-Gree k world , o f it s ric h culture s an d thei r significance fo r a n understandin g o f "worl d art. " I t i s interestin g t o note, however , tha t thes e consideration s o f earl y culture s wer e no t made i n th e contex t of , o r i n relatio n to , th e "querelle " betwee n th e ancients an d th e moderns . I t wa s Hege l wh o sa w th e thre e grea t phenomena—pre-Greek cultures , Gree k ar t an d civilization , an d th e modern world—a s interrelated , an d i n s o doin g h e initiate d th e tripar tite syste m o f hi s vie w o f art . I t i s als o wort h notin g tha t th e Germa n students an d poet s wh o wer e fascinate d wit h th e pre-Gree k culture s mainly kne w texts ; wha t the y ha d i n min d wer e verbal , literar y expres sions. T o Hegel , b y contrast , th e visua l art s wer e th e medi a b y whic h the centra l expression s o f thes e culture s wer e transmitted . After thes e fe w observation s o n th e cultura l contex t o f Hegel' s system o f th e arts , le t u s no w tur n t o wha t h e say s abou t thos e ar t forms themselves . The Symbolic Art Form. Symballein (OVlx(5(Xk\€iV), th e origi n o f ou r "symbol," th e dictionar y tell s us , initiall y mean t t o thro w together , t o bring together . However , i t wa s HegeP s view , a s wel l a s Schelling's , that i n th e symbo l th e infinit e an d th e finite, th e ide a an d th e form , never completel y coalesce . Ever y symbol , then , contain s a tensio n tha t has no t bee n full y dissolved . I n hi s no t ver y simpl e language , Hege l says : Symbol i s an external existen t given or immediately presen t t o contemplation , which yet i s to be understood no t simply as it confronts u s immediately on its own account , bu t i n a wider and more universal sense . Thus at once there ar e two distinctions t o make in the symbol: (i) the meaning, and (ii) the expression thereof. The first is an ide a or topic, no matter wha t it s content, th e second is a sensuous existent o r a picture of some kind or other. 35 Because th e tw o part s o f th e symbol—th e meanin g symbolize d an d the objec t o r shap e symbolizin g tha t meaning—d o no t completel y overlap o r merge , ther e remain s a tensio n i n th e relation s betwee n them. Shap e an d meanin g ar e no t necessaril y altogethe r externa l t o each other ; thei r connectio n i s no t necessaril y a n arbitrar y one , bu t a 184

Illustrations

The Fate of the Artist, a l a t e e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y e n g r a v i n g , s h o w s t h e a r t i s t ( a n d hi s w o r k ) a p p r o a c h e d b y t h e s h i n i n g figures M i n e r v a , a n d b y d a r k g r o t e s q u e figures photograph.

o f reason , includin g a

wit h beasts ' heads . Author' s

G e r a r d d e L a i r e s s e , Detail of a Model Sheet, T h o u g h drawin g fro m natur

r e p r o d u c e d i n t h e Grand livre.

e wa s considere d th

e artist' s highes

t

achievement, th e c o p y i n g o f m o d e l sheets , customar y i n w o r k s h o p s since th e lat e M i d d l e A g e s , c o n t i n u e d t o b e practiced . A u t h o r ' s p h o t o graph.

M e n g s ' s Parnassus, p a i n t e d i n 1 7 6 0 - 1 7 6 1 o n t h e c e i l i n g o f t h e G a l l e r y i n the Vill a Albani , R o m e , i s th e pictoria l p r o c l a m a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c classicism, b o r r o w i n g subjec t m a t t e r an d forma l motif s fro m Antiquit y and transformin g t h e m int o Neoclassica l images . Author' s photograph .

J a c q u e s L o u i s D a v i d , The Sabines,

1799

, L o u v r e , Paris . I n r e p r e s e n t i n g

t h i s d r a m a t i c s t o r y D a v i d m a n a g e s t o i n d i c a t e t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of , a n d high regar d for , archai c ar t tha t a t th e t u r n o f th e c e n t u r y w a s b e g i n n i n g to emerg e o n th e cultura l horizon . Permissio n Musee s Nationaux , France.

R a p h a e l , Sistine Madonna,

D r1515 esden

. T h e Sistine Madonna

appeare

d

to W i n c k e l m a n n a s t h e p e r f e c t imitatio n o f t h e G r e e k Ideal ; i n h e r fac e a n d figure

h

e discovere d th e nobl e tranquillit y h e believe d t o b

e

characteristic o f th e ancien t image s o f th e gods . Permissio n Staatlich e Kunstsammlungen, Dresden .

Venus Medici ( d e t a i l ) , F l o r e n c e , U f f i z i . C a r r i e d a w a y t o P a r i s i n 180 2 a n d r e t u r n e d t o F l o r e n c e i n 1 8 1 6 , t h is f a m o u s s t a t u e , c o n s i d e r e d a t t h e t i m e an e m b o d i m e n t o f femal e b e a u t y , e x e r t e d a

profoun d influenc e o n

n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s c u l p t u r e a n d t h e o r y o f art . A u t h o r ' s p h o t o g r a p h .

Apollo Belvedere,

Rome

. F o r g e n e r a t i o n s t h e Apollo

Belvedere

wa

s th

e

ultimate e x a m p l e s h o w i n g ar t o v e r c o m i n g nature . T h e statu e s e r v e d b o t h a s a n idea l t o b e s o u g h t afte r a n d a s a y a r d s t i c k fo r j u d g i n g th e v a l u e o f r e c e n t w o r k s o f art . A u t h o r ' s p h o t o g r a p h .

Laocob'n, R o m e . P e r h a p s n o o t h e r w o r k o f a n c i e n t a r t w a s a s i n f l u e n t i a l , b o t h o n a r t i s t s a n d o n w r i t e r s o n art . I n t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t t h e Laocoon g a v e ris e t o a c r u c i a l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , bes t k n o w n i n t h e clas h b e t w e e n W i n c k e l m a n n ' s a n d Lessing' s v i e w s o f w h a t th e visua l art s can , or cannot , achieve . Author' s photograph .

J. B . C . C h a r d i n , The Smoker's Kit,

1737(F) , L o u v r e , P a r i s . D e t a c h e d f r o m

n o b l e l i t e r a r y c o n n o t a t i o n s , m o d e r n stil l lif e c o u l d p r o c l a i m a p r o g r a m : by a c c e p t i n g insignifican t object s a s th e m a i n subjec t m a t t e r o f picture s critics c o u l d b e le d t o admi t tha t th e value s o f paintin g ar e no

t

necessarily thos e o f content . Permissio n M u s e e s N a t i o n a u x , France .

(Left) C o r r e g g i o , Jupiter and

Io,

ca . 1^32 , K u n s t h i s t o r i s c h e s M u s e u m

,

Vienna. Artists , critics , an d philosopher s b e t w e e n th e middl e o f th e eighteenth an d th e middl e o f th e nineteent h centurie s w e r e fascinate d by C o r r e g g i o ' s e v o c a t i v e p o w e r , a n d referre d t o thi s paintin g a s a n e x a m p l e o f th e i m p a c t o f ar t o n th e beholder . Permissio n K u n s t h i s t o risches M u s e u m , Vienna .

J. B . G r e u z e , The Village Bride, e x h i b i t e d i n t h e S a l o n o f 1 7 6 1 ( n o w i n t h e L o u v r e , Paris) . P a i n t e d i n th e s a m e y e a r a s M e n g s ' s idealize d visio n o f the Parnassus , G r e u z c ' s everyday-lif e imag e o f a famil y occasio n c e l e b r a t e s m a r r i a g e a s a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n o f c o n t e m p o r a r y life photograph.

. Author' s

G u s t a v e C o u r b e t , The Stone Breakers,

1849 . F o r m e r l y Stat e P i c t u r e G a l -

lery, D r e s d e n . A n e m b o d i m e n t o f p r o g r a m m a t i c realism , th e pictur e e l e v a t e s e v e r y d a y figures

t o a m o n u m e n t a l level . T h e socialis t P r o u d h o n ,

C o u r b e t ' s frien d an d defender , likene d th e paintin g t o a parabl e fro m the Gospels . A u t h o r ' s photograph .

W i l h e l m T i s c h b e i n , Goethe in

the

Roman

Campagna,

1

7 8 6 - 17 87, S t a -

d e l s c h e s K u n s t i n s t i t u t , F r a n k f u r t - a m - M a i n . G o e t h e ' s s o j o u r n i n Ital y m a r k s a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n hi s intellectua l d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d i s e x p r e s s e d by th e painte r w h o p o r t r a y e d him . P r e s e r v i n g th e antiquarian' s faithful ness t o detail s ( w e c a n identif y th e t o m b o f Cecili a M e t e l l a i n th e b a c k g r o u n d ) , th e paintin g b e c o m e s a n i m a g e o f m e d i t a t i o n u p o n a los t classical past . P e r m i s s i o n S t a e d e l s c h e s K u n s t i n s t i t u t , Frankfurt .

D r a w i n g b y Charle s Baudelaire , privat e collection . Inscribe d i n Baude laire's hand : " S p e c i m e n o f A n t i q u e B e a u t y , d e d i c a t e d t o C h e n a v a r d . " C h e n a v a r d w a s a classicisti c a c a d e m i c painter , an d Baudelaire' s inscrip tion clearl y carrie s a satirica l u n d e r t o n e . A u t h o r ' s p h o t o g r a p h .

G u s t a v e C o u r b e t , The Painter's Studio

(detail) , 1 8 ^ 4 - 1 8 ^ ^ , L o u v r e , Paris .

In a l e t t e r t o C h a m p f l e u r y ( J a n u a r y 1855)

C o u r b e t e x p l a i n e d thi s as -

t h e n - u n r i n i s h e d p a i n t i n g a n d hi s i d e a s o n a r t i n g e n e r a l . R e a l i t y i n c l u d e s both everyda y scene s an d allegories . Permissio n M u s e e s Nationaux France.

,

C a s p a r D a v i d F r i e d r i c h , Winter, 1808

, formerl y M u n i c h (destroye d 1931) .

T h a t d e c a y a n d d e a t h ar e t h e u n i v e r s a l fat e o f e v e r y c r e a t u r e a n d h a v e cosmic validit y i s bes t expresse d b y mean s o f landscape : th e decayin g ruin, th e tre e strippe d o f foliage , an d th e ol d m a n m e r g e int o o n e "natural symbol. Munich.

" Permissio

n Bayerisch

e Staatsgemaldesammlung

,

A . L . R i c h t e r , The Passage at the Stone of Terror, c a . 1 8 3 7 , D r e s d e n . P e o p l e of differen t age s travelin g o n a smal l boa t m a y sugges t th e ol d t h e m e o f t h e p a s s a g e o f life . T h e b o a t , o n e n o t e s , t r a v e l s i n t o t h e d a r k n e s s o f evening, makin g a

symboli c statemen t abou t natur e an d th e natura l

cycle o f time . Author' s photograph .

J. A . D . I n g r e s , Apotheosis of

Homer, 1 8 2 7

, L o u v r e , Paris . A g a i n s t t h e

b a c k d r o p o f a n Ioni c t e m p l e , a hierarch y o f grea t artist s t h r o u g h o u t th e a g e s i s t o p p e d b y t h e figure painting Ingre s m a d e a

o f H o m e r , t h e i n w a r d - l o o k i n g p o e t . I n thi s

powerfu l pictoria l statemen t concernin g th e

artist an d th e i m m u t a b l e aestheti c authorit y o f classica l G r e e c e . P e r m i s sion M u s e e s Nationaux , France .

J. A . D . I n g r e s , The Dream of Ossian, d r a w i n g , L o u v r e , P a r i s . T h e O s s i a n i c poems, a t th e tim e believe d t o b e genuin e record s o f Nordi c m y t h o l o g y , p r o v i d e d Ingre s w i t h t h e m e s o f dream s an d visions . Permissio n M u s e e s Nationaux, France .

H e n r y F u s e l i , Artist Despairing at

the Greatness of Ancient Remains,

drawing

,

1778—1780, K u n s t h a u s , Z u r i c h . Fusel i sharpl y criticize d a c a d e m i c clas sicism. I n thi s d r a w i n g t h e r e b e l l i o u s Fusel i c r e a t e d a strikin g a d m i s s i o n o f th e i n d e s t r u c t i b l e g r e a t n e s s o f A n t i q u i t y a s a n e x p r e s s i o n o f hi s o w n loneliness. C o u r t e s y Kunsthaus , Z u r i c h .

J. A . D . I n g r e s , Raphael and

the

Fornarina,

1814

, Fog g Ar t Museum ,

Cambridge, Mass . T h e cul t o f Raphae l b e c o m e s a eulog y o f th e creativ e artist. P e r m i s s i o n F o g g A r t M u s e u m , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , C a m b r i d g e , Mass. Beques t o f Grenvill e L . W i n t h r o p .

L o u i s H e r c o l e S i s c o ( a f t e r L . C . A . S t e i n h e i l ) , Durer Followed by Demons, 1840, i l l u s t r a t i o n f o r V i c t o r H u g o ' s Les voix interieurs. D u r e as a

lonel y ramble r i n th e dept h o f a

r i s picture d

horribl e forest , h a u n t e d b

fantastic, frightenin g d e m o n s . T h e artis t a s a

y

martyr , sufferin g fro m

hallucinations, b e c a m e on e o f th e majo r type s i n th e imaginatio n o f th e period. Author' s photograph .

E u g e n e D e l a c r o i x , Michelangelo in

His Studio, 1 8 ^ 0

, M u s e e Fabre , M o n t -

pellier. A n e x a m p l e o f th e M i c h e l a n g e l o v e n e r a t i o n s o characteristi c o f romantic t h o u g h t , th e paintin g als o attest s t o th e c o n c e p t i o n tha t th e a r t i s t w h o c r e a t e d t h e t i t a n i c figures Author's photograph .

w a s h i m s e l f a n i n t r o s p e c t i v e figure.

E u g e n e D e l a c r o i x , Tasso in the Madhouse, 1 8 3 9

, C o l l e c t i on O s k ar R e i n h a r t ,

W i n t e r t h u r , Switzerland . T h e artist's , a n d th e p o e t ' s , lin k w i t h insanit y was a n ol d motif . D e l a c r o i x her e c o m b i n e s th e traditiona l imager y o f melancholy contemplatio n (restin g th e hea d o n th e hand ) w i t h th e m o r e m o d e r n institutio n fo r th e detentio n o f th e insane . C o u r t e s y C o l l e c t i o n Oskar Reinhart , Winterthur , Switzerland .

E u g e n e D e l a c r o i x , Paganini, 1 8 3 1

, Phillip s C o l l e c t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .

P r o b a b l y p a i n t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r D e l a c r o i x a t t e n d e d P a g a n i n i ' s first

con -

cert i n Paris , th e paintin g d o c u m e n t s D e l a c r o i x ' s fascinatio n b o t h w i t h the image s o f th e artis t an d w i t h o t h e r arts , especiall y music . Permissio n T h e Phillip s C o l l e c t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .

E u g e n e D e l a c r o i x , Chopin, d r a w i n g , p r i v a t e c o l l e c t i o n . D e l a c r o i x r a r e l y p a i n t e d p o r t r a i t s o n c o m m i s s i o n ; h i s finest

e x a m p l e s ar e o f hi s friends .

In C h o p i n ' s i m a g e h e c o m b i n e d f e a t u r e s o f t h e c o n q u e r i n g h e r o a n d o f the disturbe d m a d m a n ; i t i s a statemen t abou t th e geniu s c o n s u m e d b y his o w n fire.

Author' s photograph .

C h a r l e s M e r y o n , Le Stryge, B i b l i o t h e q u

e N a t i o n a l e , Paris . N i n e t e e n t h -

century restoratio n o f medieva l m o n u m e n t s , particularl y i n France , brought abou t a uniqu e m i x t u r e o f medieva l motif s an d m o d e r n inter pretations, suc h a s th e m a n y vision s o f d e m o n s . A u t h o r ' s p h o t o g r a p h .

M e d i e v a l g r o t e s q u e figures

appeale

d t o th e tast e o f C h a m p f l e u r y . A

p i e c e o f lat e m e d i e v a l w o o d c a r v i n g h e s a w i n th e palac e o f justic e i n R o u e n s h o w e d h i m h o w p o w e r f u l a n d p r i m e v a l w a s t h e figure juggler i n medieva l imagination . Author' s photograph .

o f th e

T h e cathedra l o f Rouen , Champfleur y discovered , abound s i n image s depicting composit e creatures . I t i s th e incongruenc e o f th e clums y bestial h e a d a n d th e delicat e h u m a n h a n d tha t reveal s th e n a t u r e o f th e grotesque. Author' s photograph .

" A h o o d e d figure

w i t h th e hea d an d bod y o f a pig , playin g a musica l

i n s t r u m e n t ( t h e o l d w o m a n w i t h t h e fiddlestick)"—in C h a m p f l e u r y d e s c r i b e d o n e o f t h e g r o t e s q u e figures cathedral o f Rouen . Author' s photograph .

thes h

e word

s

e sa w i n th e

A g r o t e s q u e imag e fro m th e cathedra l o f R o u e n , use d a s a n illustratio n by Champfleury . T h e distorte d an d deforme d mirro r th e Middl e Age s seemed t o hol d u p t o humanit y wa s e n d o w e d wit h a mysteriou s p o w e r o f expressio n an d exercise d a n aestheti c fascinatio n o v e r th e m o d e r n spectator. Author' s photograph .

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts certain alienatio n canno t b e overcome. Wer e thi s otherwise , th e objec t or shap e w e tak e a s a symbol woul d b e a n imag e o f the meaning, no t a

symbol.

Hegel no w turn s t o a n interna l histor y o f th e symboli c ar t form . In the earlies t stage s o f culture , me n directl y endowe d wit h meanin g certain materia l object s o r phenomen a the y foun d o r observed . The y were no t awar e o f th e incongruenc e o f wha t the y encountere d i n sensory experienc e an d th e meaning s the y attribute d t o it . The ancien t Persians, fo r example , worshipe d ligh t a s such ; th e su n itself , the y believed, wa s God . Thi s i s a presymboli c stag e o f consciousness . I t follows fro m HegeP s reasoning , thoug h h e doe s no t sa y s o explicitly , that a t thi s stag e n o great ar t ca n emerge. Th e artistic imag e require s a certain distanc e betwee n th e objec t represented , o r th e meanin g re ferred to , and th e representatio n itself . S o long a s the spiritua l an d th e material ar e not sundered , ther e i s no roo m fo r art. Even a t thi s stage , however , i t dawn s upo n ma n tha t th e Divin e i s more tha n th e natura l objec t considere d a s th e god. India n ar t reflect s the initia l expression s o f thi s earl y awareness . O n th e on e hand , th e Divine wa s detached fro m al l material links ; Go d wa s conceive d a s the absolute infinite , a s "nothingness.' ' Bu t nothingness , howeve r loft y i t may be , cannot b e captured b y the artist ; thu s India n ar t too k refug e i n the mos t luxurian t sensuality . u In order , a s sensuous figures themselves , to reac h universality , th e individual figures ar e wildly tugge d apar t fro m one anothe r int o th e colossal an d grotesque." 36 Actual symbolis m begin s i n Egypt ; her e w e find a ful l elaboratio n o f the symboli c ar t form . "Egyp t i s th e countr y o f symbols, " Hege l says , "the countr y whic h set s itsel f th e spiritua l tas k o f th e self-decipherin g of th e spirit , withou t actuall y attainin g t o th e decipherment." 37 Sym bolism coul d emerg e her e becaus e i n Egyptia n cultur e an d imaginatio n the immediat e unit y o f object an d ide a wa s shattered. I n thei r religiou s practices th e Egyptian s di d no t projec t divin e dignit y ont o rea l natura l objects, no r di d the y conside r actua l creature s a s themselve s gods . The Egyptians, Hege l stressed , require d tha t ther e b e a definit e correspon dence, a congruence , betwee n th e meanin g investe d i n a n objec t an d the objec t a s such . Th e ver y deman d fo r congruenc e implie s that , i n reality itself , a certain incongruenc e prevail s betwee n natur e an d spirit . i8S

Modern Theories of Art The "Ag e o f Egypt, " a s Hege l call s it , wa s caugh t u p i n a conflict: o n the on e hand , i t sense d th e contras t betwee n natur e an d spirit , an d o n the other , i t wishe d t o mak e th e spiritua l manifes t i n th e natura l an d material. Here , h e believes , i s the origi n o f th e visua l arts . Only whe n th e inwar d bein g become s fre e an d ye t preserve s th e impulse t o pictur e t o itself , i n a rea l shape , wha t it s essenc e is , an d t o have thi s ver y pictur e befor e itsel f als o a s a n externa l work , onl y the n does th e impuls e toward s art , especiall y toward s th e visua l arts , prop erly begin. 38 In orde r t o mak e th e spiritua l manifes t i n a materia l object , on e cannot simpl y tak e wha t on e finds (vorflnden) in nature . T o mak e th e material objec t transparent , a s i t were , s o tha t th e inward , th e spiritual , can shin e through , on e ha s t o invent (erflnden) that object . Symbols — that is , object s o r shape s suggestin g th e Spirit , th e Divine , th e Infinite , and s o on—hav e t o b e "produced, " "made, " "invented." 39 I t wa s i n Egypt tha t ma n mad e thi s discovery , an d therefor e Egyp t i s the countr y of th e symbol . Both Egyptia n religio n an d Egyptia n ar t ar e dominated—t o us e Hegel's metaphysica l wording , s o har d t o translat e int o ordinar y speec h — b y th e spirit' s strivin g fo r self-understanding , b y man' s endeavo r t o decode hi s ow n mystery . Usuall y ma n trie s t o understan d himsel f b y thinking; th e Egyptian s di d s o b y building . The y erecte d th e hug e citie s of th e dead , the y buil t th e pyramids , the y shape d th e sphinxes . I n al l these works , mut e an d veile d i n myster y a s the y are , on e sense s th e powerful driv e toward s self-understanding . I shal l conclud e thi s brie f surve y o f th e "symboli c ar t form " wit h two o f Hegel' s observation s o n Egyptia n art . Th e first concern s th e image o f th e huma n figure. Hege l mus t hav e bee n amon g th e earlies t authors t o attemp t t o plac e th e Egyptia n renderin g o f th e huma n bod y between wha t h e conceive d a s pre-Egyptia n an d Gree k representations . In contradistinctio n t o India n art , wher e th e huma n figure i s eithe r grotesquely sensua l o r a mer e personificatio n o f a n abstrac t idea , i n Egyptian ar t th e imag e o f th e huma n bod y acquire s a certain autonomy . The huma n form , h e says , "acquire s a quit e differen t formatio n an d therefore alread y reveal s th e struggl e t o ris e upwar d t o th e inne r an d spiritual life . . . . " Bu t Egyptia n ar t ha s no t ye t reache d th e stag e wher e 186

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts the huma n bod y ca n b e th e mirro r o f th e spirit . "Th e shape s remai n colossal, serious, petrified; leg s without freedo m an d serene distinctness , arms and head closel y and firmly affixed t o the rest o f the body, withou t grace an d living movement." 40 This particula r stag e o f consciousness , a s reflecte d i n image s o f th e human body , i s expressed i n som e legendar y work s o f art. Hege l refer s to certai n statues , know n t o hi m fro m Gree k o r Lati n literature . "Especially remarkable, " he says, u are thos e colossa l statue s o f Memno n which, restin g i n themselves , motionless , th e arm s glue d t o th e body , the fee t firmly fixed together , numb , stiff , an d lifeless, ar e set up facin g the su n in orde r t o awai t it s ray to touc h the m an d give the m sou l and sound." Whe n th e ray s o f th e su n touc h th e statues , s o th e legen d went, the y automaticall y emitte d a sound . Thi s stor y seem s t o Hege l symbolic. Tha t th e colossi mus t awai t th e sun's ray s t o produce a soun d shows "tha t the y d o no t hav e th e spiritua l sou l freel y i n themselves. " There is a soul i n the human body , "bu t the inner lif e o f the soul i s still dumb i n Egyp t an d i n it s animatio n i t i s onl y a natura l facto r tha t i s kept i n view." 41 Hegel conclude s hi s discours e o n Egyptia n ar t wit h a n interpreta tion o f the Sphinx . N o othe r work , o r motif , i n Egyptia n ar t expresse s the struggl e betwee n matte r an d min d mor e forcefull y tha n doe s th e Sphinx. Thi s uniqu e wor k is , i n hi s ow n words , "th e symbo l o f th e symbolic." 42 Fro m th e dul l powe r o f tha t tremendou s mas s o f th e resting, passiv e beas t th e huma n frame , th e prope r sea t o f th e spirit , gropes t o emerge, an d to come int o it s own. Not for nothin g di d Gree k mythology pictur e th e Sphin x a s a monster posin g riddles . The solutio n to th e Sphinx's riddl e wa s to be given b y the Greek mind .

The Classical Art Form. Can th e lif e o f th e spiri t b e perceive d i n sensor y experience? Ther e i s onl y one form tha t ca n mak e thi s possible—th e human body . Th e huma n figure, Hege l believes , i s th e singl e mediu m through whic h th e spiri t ca n shine . H e propose s a metaphysica l expla nation fo r thi s stat e o f affairs . "Th e cente r o f ar t i s a unification , self enclosed s o as to b e a free totality , a unificatio n o f the content wit h it s entirely adequat e shape." 43 In other words , ther e i s one theme i n whic h 187

Modern Theories of Art meaning an d shap e full y overlap . Thi s them e i s the huma n figure, an d i t formed th e ver y essenc e o f Gree k art . The complet e overlappin g o f conten t an d form , o f meanin g an d shape, canno t b e attaine d immediately . No r ca n i t for m th e startin g point o f history . "Th e first poin t t o whic h w e mus t direc t ou r atten tion," say s Hegel , "i s this , tha t th e classica l art-for m i s no t t o b e regarded, a s th e symbolic , a s th e direc t commencemen t o f beginning o f art, bu t o n th e contrar y a s a result. 44 No t onl y i s th e classica l ar t for m preceded b y th e symbolic ; it als o ha s a n interna l histor y o f it s own . Classical ar t begin s wit h th e overcomin g o f th e merel y natural . Firs t comes th e depositio n o f th e animal . I n thi s respect , th e Greek s distin guished themselve s fro m Asiati c an d Egyptia n cultures . Oriental s be lieved tha t th e Divin e wa s reveale d t o the m i n anima l form . Thus , i n India hospital s wer e buil t fo r agin g cow s an d apes , whil e huma n being s were lef t t o starv e a t th e roa d side ; i n Egypt , th e sacre d beast s wer e preserved fo r eternit y b y embalmment . Th e Greek s overcam e thi s reverence fo r th e beast , and mad e th e undoin g of the anima l th e conten t of religiou s idea s an d o f work s o f art . Hege l her e gives a n interpretatio n of Greek iconograph y tha t i s well wort h th e modern student' s attention . The representatio n o f anima l sacrific e play s a majo r par t i n th e artisti c repertoire. Th e subduin g an d slayin g o f th e wil d beas t i s glorified, i t i s considered a heroic deed , an d i t i s represented man y time s i n al l media . Finally, transformatio n int o a beas t i s considere d a sever e punishment . In al l thes e respects , th e Greek s ar e full y oppose d t o Oriental s an d

Egyptians.

Another—and i n HegeP s view , a higher—stag e o f overcomin g th e merely natura l i s mirrored i n th e struggl e betwee n th e ol d an d th e ne w gods o f whic h Gree k mytholog y tell s us . Th e ol d god s wer e merel y nature gods , th e appearanc e o f brut e natura l forces ; th e ne w god s appeared a s spiritual creatures . The myt h o f th e overthro w o f th e giant s by th e ne w god s reflect s th e Greeks ' substitutio n o f a mor e rationa l ethos fo r on e tha t glorifie d shee r migh t a s right . Yet thoug h mer e nature , is overcome i n thi s battle , a natura l elemen t is retained i n th e Gree k gods . Bu t tha t residua l o f nature i s transformed . To giv e bu t on e example , i n Poseido n "lie s th e migh t o f th e se a tha t streams aroun d th e earth , bu t hi s powe r an d activit y stretche s further : 188

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts he buil t Tro y an d wa s a safeguar d o f Athens ; i n genera l h e wa s worshipped a s th e founde r o f cities , becaus e th e se a i s th e elemen t fo r shipping, trade , an d th e bon d betwee n men." 45 The degradatio n o f th e beast , th e fal l o f th e Titans , th e overcomin g of the merel y natura l god s an d thei r transformatio n int o spiritua l being s —all thi s converge s t o reveal , i n direc t sensor y experience , th e classica l ideal, th e embodimen t o f a perfec t balanc e betwee n natur e an d spirit . This bring s u s bac k t o th e startin g poin t o f th e classica l ar t form , th e human body . The Romantic Art Form. The thir d ar t for m i s th e "romantic. " I t goe s without sayin g tha t th e meanin g o f "romantic " a s Hege l employ s i t differs radicall y fro m wha t w e ar e accustome d t o designat e b y thi s ter m today. Whe n usin g Romanti c o r Romanticis m a s historica l terms , w e have a fe w decade s o f th e lat e eighteent h an d earl y nineteent h centur y in mind . I n Hegel' s usage , th e ter m ha s a n incomparabl y broade r scope : it denote s th e whol e postclassica l world . Th e romanti c ar t for m thu s includes severa l historica l period s an d severa l artisti c styles. The classica l art for m wa s th e produc t o f on e natio n (th e Greeks ) only , an d o f one , comparatively brief , period . A s agains t suc h homogeneity , th e romanti c art form , lik e th e symbolic , comprise s differen t historica l stage s an d artistic styles . Hege l distinguishes , o f course , betwee n th e differen t periods (Middl e Ages , Reformation , moder n times ) tha t h e lump s to gether i n th e comprehensiv e notio n o f "romanti c ar t form. " H e i s als o aware o f th e difference s betwee n th e style s h e include s i n tha t category . He doe s no t forge t ho w fa r remove d a Byzantine imag e o f th e virgin , o r a Raphae l Madonna , i s from , say , th e "merry-makin g o f peasants " i n a Dutch genr e piece. 46 Tha t hi s notio n o f "ar t form " differ s fro m tha t o f style o r perio d become s her e almos t tangibl y obvious . Wha t then , on e asks, d o thes e differen t period s an d style s hav e i n commo n tha t make s it possibl e fo r Hege l t o brin g the m togethe r int o th e on e ar t form ? The answe r seem s obvious : "romantic " i s th e ar t o f th e Christia n world. Tha t Hege l cast s al l th e style s an d period s o f Christia n ar t int o one comprehensiv e "form " shoul d no t surpris e us . Th e Divine , w e remember, i s th e suprem e subjec t o f al l art ; th e period s an d style s o f the histor y o f art ar e therefor e ultimatel y determine d b y th e natur e an d 189

Modern Theories of Art image o f th e go d wh o i s worshipe d i n th e age . I n seein g th e whol e o f European ar t as , in th e las t analysis , shape d b y Christia n ideas , beliefs , and images , Hege l reveal s ho w close h e is to wha t th e romantics i n our modern sens e actuall y thought. 47 Hegel interpret s th e formation o f Christian ar t in metaphysical terms . What h e says her e read s almos t lik e the description o f a cosmic process . "There i s somethin g highe r tha n th e beautifu l appearanc e o f th e spiri t in it s immediat e sensuou s shape, " w e ar e tol d a t th e beginnin g o f th e lectures o n th e romantic ar t form , "eve n i f this shap e b e created b y the spirit a s adequat e t o itself. " A s history unfolds , th e perfec t "reconcilia tion" betwee n spiri t an d for m i s foun d wanting . Th e spiri t "i s pushe d back int o itsel f ou t o f its reconciliatio n i n the corporeal int o a reconcil iation o f itsel f withi n itself. " Th e modern reade r nee d no t be put of f by this kin d o f wording , whic h partl y belong s t o th e period , an d partl y results fro m Hegel' s particula r intuitio n o f abstrac t beings . Wha t h e means follow s clearl y fro m hi s statement tha t "th e simpl e soli d totalit y of th e Idea l [a s embodied i n Greek art ] is dissolved [i n Christianity ] and it fall s apart " int o a spiritual , interna l par t an d a material , externa l part. 48 Th e disintegratio n o f classica l art , then , mean s th e en d o f th e aesthetic autonom y o f art (base d o n th e full unit y o f subject an d form) ; this proces s mark s th e severing o f body an d soul . Christian art , Hege l says , is religious art . At a first glance , thi s woul d not see m t o b e a ver y far-reachin g statement . A s we remember , all art is concerne d wit h th e imag e o f th e Divine . I n makin g thi s seemingl y obvious statement , however , Hege l ha s somethin g particula r i n mind , and w e shal l bes t b e abl e t o discer n i t whe n w e compar e classica l an d Christian art . I n Greece , ar t wa s the medium o f the gods' revelation . I t was onl y i n sculptur e tha t th e Gree k god s attaine d tha t perfec t balanc e between th e physica l an d spiritua l whic h i s a hallmark o f their divinity . In Greece , therefore , ar t wa s the medium o f religious revelation . No t so in Christianity . Th e Christia n ico n i s not essentia l fo r th e revelatio n o f the Divine . O n th e contrary, whe n th e artist take s u p his job (or, as we might add , whe n th e wor k o f ar t i s presente d t o th e audience) , th e revelation i s presuppose d a s a complete d an d well-know n event , i t i s considered a s given ; th e artis t ha s n o par t i n bringin g i t about , i n articulating o r manifestin g th e divin e figure. Th e religiou s content s an d 190

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts even th e image s ar e not shape d i n art itself ; th e artist finds the m read y and completed. 49 This chang e i n th e statu s o f ar t follow s fro m th e religiou s develop ment itself . I n Greek religion , a s we have just said , th e full fusio n o f the human an d th e Divin e wa s suppose d t o tak e plac e i n art . Christianit y radicalized th e fusion o f the huma n an d the Divine , and carried i t t o its ultimate conclusion : Go d becam e a rea l man . Th e incarnatio n wa s n o longer a n artisti c achievement , a n aestheti c experience ; i t becam e th e reality o f a living, individua l being . Can th e wor k o f ar t stil l mirro r th e Divin e unde r thes e conditions ? If judged b y Gree k standards , ar t no w canno t attai n it s goal. "Externa l appearance canno t an y longe r expres s th e inne r life , an d i f i t i s stil l called t o d o s o it merel y ha s the tas k o f provin g tha t th e externa l i s an unsatisfying existenc e an d mus t poin t bac k t o th e inner , t o th e min d and feelin g a s th e essentia l element." 50 Romanti c ar t i s a n ar t o f th e "inner life, " o f Innerlichkeit. Hegel als o look s a t th e differenc e betwee n Gree k an d Christia n ar t from th e spectator' s poin t o f view . Th e classica l idea l figure "i s com plete i n itself , independent , reserved , unreceptive , a finished individua l which reject s everythin g else. " The spectator approachin g thes e figures "cannot mak e thei r existenc e hi s own. " Therefore , Hege l concludes , "although th e shape s o f th e eterna l god s ar e human , the y stil l d o no t belong t o th e morta l realm , fo r thes e god s hav e no t themselve s experi enced th e deficienc y o f finite existence . . . . " Christianit y teache s tha t God becam e a rea l man . N o wonde r tha t "empirica l ma n acquire s a n aspect fro m whic h a relationship an d poin t o f linkage [wit h God ] opens up t o him. . . ."S1 From al l thi s follow s th e subjec t matte r o f Christia n art : religiou s imagery i n general , particularl y th e imag e o f Christ , an d foremos t th e Passion. Th e imag e o f Christ , Hege l suggests , canno t b e depicte d wit h the mean s an d form s o f classica l art . Thos e artist s wh o hav e trie d t o make o f Chris t a n almos t classica l figure hav e proceede d i n th e wors t possible way . Though th e prope r image s o f Chris t "d o displa y serious ness, calm , an d dignity , Chris t shoul d hav e o n th e on e han d subjectiv e personality an d individuality, and , o n th e other , inwardnes s an d purel y universal spirituality ; bot h thes e characteristic s ar e inconsisten t wit h th e 191

Modern Theories of Art imprint o f blis s o n th e visibl e aspec t o f th e huma n form." 52 Eve n mor e than i n iconlik e image s o f Christ , thi s become s obviou s i n depiction s o f stages o f th e Passion . "Chris t scourged , wit h th e crow n o f thorns , carrying hi s cros s t o th e plac e o f execution , naile d t o th e cross , passin g away i n th e agon y o f a torturin g an d slo w death—thi s canno t b e portrayed i n th e form s o f Gree k beauty . . . ." 5 3 We no w tur n t o th e las t par t o f Hegel' s aesthetics , th e syste m o f th e individual arts . Th e "ar t forms, " w e hav e seen , ar e comprehensiv e an d general units . Thoug h w e clearl y perceiv e thei r mai n characteristic s a s well a s the difference s amon g them , i t i s difficult t o grasp the m directly . They ca n perhap s bes t b e describe d a s propensitie s tha t determin e th e typical subjec t matter , typica l forms , an d historica l developmen t o f th e arts o f th e ages . The individua l arts , o n th e othe r hand , ar e mor e easil y perceived; the y ar e define d b y concrete , specifi c materials , b y th e sense s with whic h w e experienc e th e work s create d i n them . I t i s obviousl y easier t o gras p wha t sculptur e i s tha n t o gras p wha t th e classica l ar t form is . HegePs philosophy , however , i s to o profoundl y dominate d b y th e notion o f interna l relationship s t o allo w hi s consideratio n o f th e art s t o be se t apar t fro m hi s concep t o f th e ar t forms . Eac h ar t run s a cycl e o f three stage s i n it s history , an d thes e Hege l call s th e "severe, " th e "classical," an d th e "pleasing." 54 Thes e style s represent , i n a sense , th e art forms . Ye t althoug h al l th e ar t form s ar e thu s presen t i n ever y singl e art, one o f th e art s i s particularl y suite d t o expres s th e spiri t an d character o f one age an d ar t form . T o bes t understan d eac h particula r art, it s character , possibilities , an d limitations , w e hav e t o se e i t i n it s most appropriat e historica l "home, " a s i t were , i n th e ar t for m i t i s particularly suite d t o express . Architecture. A s distinctly fitted t o manifest th e idea s and menta l attitude s of th e symboli c stage , architectur e i s th e prope r mediu m o f th e sym bolic ar t form . Tha t affinit y follow s fro m a commo n featur e tha t dominates th e respectiv e structure s o f th e symbo l an d th e building : "architecture correspond s t o th e symbolic for m o f art, and , a s a particula r art, realize s th e principl e o f tha t for m i n th e mos t appropriat e way , because th e meaning s implante d i n architectur e i t ca n i n genera l indi 192

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts cate onl y i n th e external s o f th e environmen t tha t i t creates." ss Pu t more simply , a s th e objec t o r shap e tha t serve s a s a symbo l i s alie n t o the ide a i t symbolizes , s o the buildin g a s such i s alien t o th e purpos e fo r which i t i s erected . I t i s th e intrinsi c tensio n betwee n th e tw o pole s that symbolis m an d architectur e hav e i n common , an d i t i s th e domi nant positio n o f thi s tensio n tha t make s architectur e th e idea l mediu m for th e symboli c cultur e an d ar t form . Architecture, Hege l says , ha s a n "external " reason . Th e buildin g i s not a n en d i n itself , it s goal i s "external, " i t lie s outsid e th e buildin g o r even th e ar t o f architecture . Architectur e begin s wit h puttin g u p a hu t as a huma n dwelling , an d th e buildin g o f a templ e a s a n enclosur e fo r the go d an d hi s community . Ther e i s a profoun d difference , therefore , between architectur e an d sculpture . Work s o f sculpture , h e believes , carry thei r meanin g i n themselves ; to work s o f architecture th e meanin g is external. 56 In sculpture , a s w e kno w fro m wha t Hege l sai d i n connectio n wit h the classica l ar t form , th e unit y o f spiri t an d matte r i s a s full y achieve d as i s given t o mankind . Sculptur e i s th e ar t o f individual , self-enclose d bodies. Thi s definitio n is , of course , no t new . Fift y year s earlier , Herde r had describe d statue s a s "figure s o f space," 57 a s objects o f full , indepen dent reality , wherea s painting s onl y tr y t o catc h phenomena . Bu t onc e again Hege l bring s long-standin g inheren t tendencie s t o ful l fruitio n i n systematically appraisin g th e wor k o f sculptur e a s th e well-rounde d object pa r excellence . What Hege l says about architectura l sculptur e i s of particular interes t in thi s context . Ou r philosophe r i s intimatel y familia r wit h thos e stage s in th e histor y o f sculptur e i n whic h th e statu e i s stil l closel y relate d t o the building . I t i s impossible , h e thinks , t o wholl y detac h a statu e fro m its environment. Nevertheless , "th e sculpture d shap e i s . . . emancipate d from th e architectura l purpos e o f servin g a s a mere externa l natur e an d environment fo r th e spiri t an d i t exist s simpl y fo r it s ow n sake." 58 Th e piece o f sculpture , existin g fo r it s ow n sake , i s th e pur e artisti c embod iment o f bein g a n object . Precisely fo r thi s reason , however , th e statu e i s buil t o n a tension , a s it were, and, i n Hegel' s terminology , require s a "reconciliation." "Whil e sculpture doe s indee d see m t o hav e th e advantag e o n th e scor e o f '93

Modern Theories of Art naturalness, thi s naturalnes s an d corporea l externalit y presente d i n terms o f heav y matte r i s precisel y no t th e natur e o f spiri t a s spirit." 59 But th e sculptor' s ai m i s no t t o manifes t th e natur e o f heav y material , but rathe r t o infus e int o i t lif e an d spirit . Thi s i s mad e obviou s b y th e fact tha t th e subjec t matte r o f sculptur e i s ma n himself , th e huma n figure an d face . I n seein g sculptur e a s th e ar t o f shapin g bodies , Hege l anticipates a great dea l o f moder n twentieth-centur y thought ; b y seein g the huma n figure a s th e central , perhap s th e only , subjec t matte r o f sculpture, h e show s ho w deepl y committe d h e wa s t o th e though t o f his ow n time . H e i s followin g Winckelman n i n makin g th e huma n figure th e sol e them e o f the sculptor , bu t h e goes beyon d hi s source s b y explaining th e reaso n fo r hi s choice: "instead o f taking fo r it s expressio n in a symboli c wa y mode s o f appearanc e merel y indicative o f th e spirit , sculpture lay s hol d o f th e huma n for m a s th e actual existence o f th e spirit." 60 How shoul d th e bod y b e shape d i n orde r t o expres s th e spirit ? A major par t o f Hegel' s discussio n o f th e ar t o f sculptur e i s devote d t o answering thi s question . Th e questio n itsel f ha s a n obviou s affinit y t o the spiri t an d tradition s o f ar t theory ; i t i s a questio n t o whic h a prescriptive answe r i s feasible . Hegel , tru e t o th e principle s o f hi s philosophy, doe s no t giv e a n "abstract"—tha t is , purel y prescriptiv e —answer; rather , h e analyze s carve d imagery , particularl y Gree k sculp ture. Bu t th e studen t o f humanisti c ar t theory , a s i t wa s know n fro m the earl y Renaissanc e t o th e Enlightenment , feel s a t home , i n spit e o f the philosopher' s esoteri c languag e an d th e introductio n o f th e "spirit. " What Hege l say s abou t th e arts , particularl y abou t sculpture , i s ar t theory. A characteristi c indicatio n o f Hegel' s didacti c attitud e i s hi s proce dure: h e break s u p th e huma n figure int o it s principal part s an d analyze s each par t separately . I n s o doing , h e relie s o n th e authorit y o f Winck elmann. I t wa s Winckelmann , h e says , wh o "pu t a n en d t o vagu e chatter abou t th e idea l o f Gree k beaut y b y characterizin g individuall y and wit h precisio n th e form s o f th e part s [o f Gree k statuary]—th e sol e undertaking tha t wa s instructive." 61 Hege l wil l procee d accordingly . "Our consideration s o f the idea l forms, " h e announces , "wil l begi n wit h 194

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts the head ; then , secondly , w e wil l g o o n t o discus s th e positio n o f th e body, an d the n w e en d wit h th e principl e fo r drapery." 62 We shal l no t her e g o int o th e detail s o f th e idea l huma n figure a s a sculptural theme ; tha t woul d requir e a monograp h o n it s own . B y wa y of example , I shall howeve r loo k a t tw o motifs . In hi s discussio n o f th e formation o f th e head , Hege l draw s bot h o n work s o f ar t an d o n scientific studies . H e trie s t o understan d th e Gree k profil e b y analyzin g Greek statues , b y adducin g view s o n th e function s o f th e individua l parts o f th e fac e (forehead , nose , mouth) , an d b y studyin g physiologist s of hi s ow n time 6 3 —a combinatio n o f source s typica l o f th e traditiona l theory o f art . Our secon d exampl e i s th e lon g excursu s o n th e difficultie s encoun tered b y th e sculpto r i n shapin g th e eye . H e begin s b y describin g wha t the spectato r o f Gree k statue s sees . "W e ca n tak e i t her e a s incontest able tha t th e iri s an d th e glanc e expressiv e o f th e spiri t i s missing fro m the reall y classi c an d fre e statue s an d bust s preserve d t o u s fro m antiquity." I n Gree k statue s w e find "onl y th e wholl y externa l shap e o f the ey e an d . . . no t it s animation , no t a rea l glance , th e glanc e o f th e inner soul." 64 Wh y i s thi s so ? I n rea l life , Hege l believes , th e ey e i s th e manifestation o f th e inwar d soul . W e kno w a man's "inmos t personalit y and feeling " b y hi s glance . Th e gaze , h e say s i n anothe r formulation , manifests "th e whol e inwardnes s o f feeling. " Bu t sculpture , w e remem ber, i s no t th e manifestatio n o f th e spiri t i n it s inmos t feeling ; rathe r i t aims t o sho w th e spiri t i n it s spatia l extension . I n othe r words , concen tration o n spiritualit y an d emotiona l lif e i s not th e busines s o f sculpture . "The wor k o f sculpture, " th e reade r i s told , "ha s n o inwardnes s whic h would manifes t itsel f explicitl y a s thi s idea l glance , i n distinctio n fro m the res t o f th e bod y o r thu s ente r th e oppositio n betwee n ey e an d body." T o pu t i t differently , sculptur e canno t trea t th e ey e differentl y from an y othe r par t o f th e body , howeve r nonspiritua l tha t par t ma y be. "Sculptur e ha s a s it s ai m th e entiret y o f th e externa l for m ove r which i t mus t dispers e th e soul. " Moreover, th e ey e look s ou t int o th e externa l world . I n lif e i t i s b y means o f a glance tha t w e establis h contac t wit h othe r objects , wit h th e outside world . Now , establishin g contac t wit h th e outsid e worl d i s i9S

Modern Theories of Art opposed t o th e natur e an d ai m o f sculpture . Th e genuin e sculptura l figure, Hege l tell s us , u is precisel y withdraw n fro m thi s lin k wit h external thing s an d is immersed i n th e substantia l natur e o f its spiritua l content, independen t i n itself , no t disperse d i n o r complicate d b y anything else." 65 Whil e thi s i s presente d a s a n explanatio n o f wh y Greek statue s loo k a s the y do , i t i s no t merel y historical . Hege l wishe s to sho w wha t sculptur e can , an d wha t i t cannot , do . Th e implicatio n for th e artist i s obvious. The thir d ar t i s painting. I t belong s t o th e romanti c ar t form , an d is the first o f th e thre e "romantic " arts—painting , music , an d poetry . The natur e o f paintin g i s easil y understoo d whe n w e compar e thi s ar t with sculpture . I t wa s the ai m of sculpture , w e hav e seen , t o sho w th e perfect balanc e betwee n bod y an d mind , betwee n spiri t an d matter . The tas k o f paintin g i s to sho w th e mind itself . Painting , h e says , "doe s not afford , a s sculptur e does , th e full y accomplishe d coalescenc e o f spirit an d bod y a s it s fundamenta l type , bu t instea d th e outwar d appearance o f th e self-concentrate d inne r life." 66 Th e characte r o f th e two art s i s reflected i n the specifi c aim s o f the sculptor an d the painter : the forme r trie s t o achiev e purit y o f form an d beaut y o f line; the latte r aims a t animatio n i n color an d grace i n grouping . The mor e spiritua l characte r o f paintin g is , first o f all, see n i n th e very structur e o f th e medium . Th e primar y mediu m o f pictoria l repre sentation i s th e surface . Paintin g transform s three-dimensiona l object s into two-dimensiona l image s tha t ca n dwel l o n a flat surface . Thi s o f course ha d bee n sai d countles s time s sinc e th e earl y fifteenth century ; one ca n hardl y ope n a n ar t theoretica l treatis e withou t encounterin g this commonplace . Bu t Hege l take s th e reductio n i n dimension s a s indicating a reduction i n sheer materiality . Sculpture , one knows, strike s a balanc e betwee n spiri t an d matter ; i n painting , matte r i s reduced an d the spiri t attain s superiority . The specifi c mediu m o f paintin g als o indicate s th e mor e spiritua l nature o f th e art . Paintin g o f cours e ha s component s i n commo n wit h architecture an d particularl y wit h sculpture . Wha t chiefl y distinguishe s it fro m the m ar e color an d composition. Architectur e an d sculpture ar e devoid o f color . Eve n wher e colo r wa s used i n thos e arts—whic h wa s rare—it remaine d marginal ; i t neve r becam e a structura l elemen t o f 196

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts either architectur e o r sculpture . I n painting , needles s t o say , matter s are otherwise . Now , colo r ha s a clos e connectio n t o th e spiritua l an d the inne r life . Hege l see s colo r a s "th e particularizatio n o f th e appearance in th e picture, " an d i t demand s a "particularizatio n o f th e inne r life." 67 Color, Hege l says , followin g a grea t tradition , i s base d o n ligh t an d darkness. Ligh t i s no t merel y a conditio n o f visibility , a s i t i s fo r architecture an d sculpture ; fo r paintin g i t i s a n intrinsi c componen t o f the ar t itself . In sculptur e an d architectur e th e shape s ar e mad e visibl e b y ligh t fro m without. But , i n painting , th e material , i n itsel f dark , ha s it s ow n inne r an d ideal element, namel y light. The material i s lit up in itself and precisely on this account itsel f darken s th e light . Bu t th e unit y an d mutua l formatio n o f ligh t and darkness is color. 68 With regar d t o th e othe r specifi c featur e o f th e mediu m o f painting , composition, Hege l i s no t a s explici t a s on e woul d wis h hi m t o be , bu t his mai n though t i s easil y followed . Sculpture , w e recall , i s th e ar t creating th e single , isolated , self-enclose d object . Painting , dealin g wit h appearances, catche s th e we b o f relation s betwee n figures, occasionall y even betwee n th e pas t an d futur e stage s o f a n even t o r a n action . Relations betwee n th e figures o f a larg e painting , Hege l says , "betra y and mirro r feeling , an d therefor e ca n b e use d i n th e happies t wa y fo r the purpos e o f making th e subjec t o f the pictur e intelligibl e an d individ ual." Raphael' s Transfiguration show s wha t th e philosophe r means . Thoug h both halves o f th e compositio n ar e clearl y kep t apart , " a suprem e connection i s no t t o b e missed." 69 I t i s thi s connectio n tha t make s th e picture intelligible . Th e us e o f relation s a s a n essentia l mean s o f artisti c creation is , so Hege l believes , characteristic o f paintin g only . The spiritualit y o f paintin g i s also see n i n it s particula r affinit y t o th e expression o f emotions , o f th e lif e o f th e soul . Paintin g "take s th e hear t as a content o f it s production. " T o b e sure , paintin g "doe s indee d wor k for ou r vision, " bu t wha t i t show s u s i s no t onl y a n objec t o r figure i n space "bu t a reflectio n o f th e spirit. " Th e principl e o f paintin g is , t o quote HegeP s somewha t involve d wording , "th e subjectivit y o f th e mind whic h i n th e lif e o f it s feelings , ideas , an d action s embrace s th e whole o f heave n an d earth . . . . 7 0 197

Modern Theories of Art The natur e o f a n art , i n Hegel' s view , canno t b e detache d fro m th e specific plac e o f tha t ar t i n history . A n ar t suc h a s paintin g coul d attai n full realizatio n onl y i n th e romanti c ag e an d ar t form—i n a n ar t form , that is , i n whic h th e spiri t ha s superiorit y ove r matter . Th e abstractio n that i s th e principl e o f painting—th e reductio n o f dimensions—i s no t "a purel y capriciou s restrictio n o r a lac k o f huma n skil l i n contras t t o nature an d it s productions" ; rathe r i t i s "th e necessar y advanc e beyon d sculpture." 71 I n simple r words , amon g th e visua l art s paintin g i s the ar t most appropriat e t o th e Christia n world . Th e spiritua l natur e o f paint ing makes tha t ar t bes t suite d t o represen t th e spiritua l natur e o f Chris t and th e Christia n saints . Hege l attempt s t o deriv e from hi s philosophica l principles a comprehensiv e syste m o f th e subjec t matte r o f Christia n art. Hi s interpretatio n o f Christia n iconograph y i s wel l wort h carefu l study (whic h i t doe s no t see m t o hav e receive d s o far) bot h fo r th e ligh t it ma y she d o n Christia n iconograph y an d a s a documen t o f earl y nineteenth-century thought . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o g o int o thes e iconographic intricacies . T o giv e on e exampl e o f Hegel' s belie f i n th e suitability o f paintin g fo r representin g th e Passio n o f Chris t I shoul d like t o quot e hi s observation s o n a pictur e representin g th e sufferin g Christ. I have in mind i n particular a head i n the Schleisshei m gallery i n which th e master (Guid o Reni , I think) ha s discovered , a s other master s to o hav e don e in similar pictures, an entirely peculiar ton e of color which i s not foun d i n the human fac e [an d place d i t betwee n o r abov e the brows] . They ha d t o disclose the nigh t o f th e spirit , an d fo r thi s purpos e fashione d a typ e o f colo r whic h corresponds i n th e mos t splendi d wa y t o thi s storm , t o thes e blac k cloud s of the spiri t tha t a t th e sam e time are firmly controlled an d kep t i n place by the brazen bro w of the divin e nature. 72 Some moder n critic s ma y find thi s overinterpretation , a s the y woul d call it , somewha t ridiculous ; some hav e smiled condescendingly , perhap s a littl e to o easily . Th e gospe l Hege l preache s i s clear : i t i s th e intimat e relationship betwee n th e particula r natur e o f a medium an d th e specifi c character o f a typ e o f subjec t matter . T o spea k i n moder n terms , i t i s the gospe l o f th e perfec t fusio n o f for m an d content . Nobod y i n hi s right min d wil l toda y den y tha t some , o r eve n many , o f Hegel' s 198

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts individual conclusion s ar e farfetche d an d arbitrary , tha t the y d o no t carry conviction . Bu t th e mai n line s o f hi s though t o n ar t exerte d a n almost magi c power , decisivel y shapin g th e though t o n ar t i n th e las t two centuries , th e centurie s tha t for m th e moder n world .

III. MERGIN G TH E ART S I. NE W TREND S

The comprehensive , worldwid e vie w o f th e arts , s o magnificentl y pre sented b y Hegel , ha d a profoun d an d far-reachin g influence . Nobody , i t seemed fo r a while , coul d withstan d th e constructive , system-buildin g force o f a n intellec t tha t assigne d a plac e t o ever y art , ever y medium , and ever y style , an d ye t le t th e univers e o f th e art s appea r a s a lucidl y structured whole . Wa s thi s no t th e final wor d abou t th e interrelatio n of th e arts ? I n th e 1830s , many though t so . But befor e th e middl e o f th e nineteenth centur y a n altogethe r differen t approac h t o th e searc h fo r the hidde n an d comple x relationship s betwee n th e art s becam e percep tible. Whil e th e Hegelia n system , i n origi n a s wel l a s ramifications , wa s primarily a Germa n phenomenon , th e ne w tren d appeare d an d devel oped mainl y i n France . It differe d fro m th e philosophica l syste m i n man y respects . Th e Hegelian constructio n wa s base d upo n a clea r an d shar p distinctio n between on e ar t an d th e other , makin g i t possibl e t o ascrib e a particula r stage i n th e historica l proces s t o eac h specifi c art . Hege l her e dre w from, an d brough t t o a conclusion , th e proces s o f juxtaposing th e art s that bega n wit h Lessing' s Laocoon. Th e syste m wa s constructe d o n a n analytical basis . Paintin g o r sculpture , i t wa s take n a s axiomatic , belon g to a n altogethe r differen t dimensio n tha n tha t o f the literar y arts ; poetry has a wholl y differen t basi s tha n architectur e o r music . Th e mor e sharply on e ar t i s distinguishe d fro m th e other , th e bette r i t ca n b e made t o fit int o th e overal l design . Th e ne w tren d tha t appeare d i n mid-century Franc e adopte d a completel y differen t attitude . I t di d no t dwell o n th e unbridgeabl e ga p betwee n on e ar t an d th e other , bu t rather stresse d thei r partia l fusion , th e possibilit y o f on e ar t changin g 199

Modern Theories of Art into another . I t i s no t a matte r o f chanc e tha t th e doubl e perceptio n sometimes calle d "synaesthesia " wa s ofte n considere d a prope r wa y o f experiencing a work o f art, an d o f accountin g fo r tha t experience . The fusionis t tren d di d no t enjo y tha t hig h leve l o f conceptua l thinking an d philosophica l articulatio n tha t wa s th e hallmar k o f th e analytical traditio n culminatin g i n Hegel' s system . I n studyin g thi s ne w approach w e ar e face d wit h a n intellectua l an d emotiona l atmosphere , or climate , rathe r tha n a philosophica l system . Ye t student s o f histor y do no t nee d t o b e tol d tha t intellectua l an d emotiona l climates , eve n i f not full y articulate , ar e ofte n mor e powerfu l a s historica l motivation s than ar e highl y articulat e abstrac t systems . I t wa s onl y toward s th e en d of th e nineteent h century , tha t is , a t a tim e tha t lie s wel l beyon d th e limits o f the presen t discussion , tha t th e ne w tren d cam e t o ful l fruition . At th e middl e o f th e century , onl y it s bar e outline s ha d becom e visible . Like th e analytica l trend , th e tren d tha t seek s t o merg e th e art s take s its departur e fro m th e axio m tha t eac h o f th e majo r art s i s roote d i n one o f th e senses ; ther e i s a n ar t o f th e eye , a n ar t o f th e ear , a n ar t o f touch. Now , i f th e perception s o f th e differen t sense s can , t o a certai n degree, merg e int o on e another , s o ca n th e respectiv e art s tha t ar e based o n them . I t i s a matte r o f experience , o r s o i t wa s believed , tha t perceptions arisin g fro m tw o o r mor e sense s can b e linke d together . Two mode s o f sensatio n ca n b e affecte d whe n onl y on e sens e i s bein g stimulated. Describin g on e kin d o f sensatio n i n term s o f anothe r i s known a s synaesthesia . Her e colo r i s attribute d t o sounds , tast e t o colors, soun d t o odors . Th e underlyin g assumptio n i n thi s wa y o f thinking i s tha t i t i s possibl e t o translate , eve n i f metaphorically , experience i n th e domai n o f on e sens e int o tha t o f another . A famou s example, frequentl y repeated , i s th e ol d stor y o f someon e bor n blin d having explaine d t o hi m wha t th e colo r scarle t i s by bein g tol d tha t i t i s like th e soun d o f a trumpet. 73 Synaesthesia, then , naturall y tend s toward s th e mergin g o f the senses . The translatio n fro m on e sens e int o anothe r ha s bee n explaine d a s a survival fro m a n earlier , comparativel y undifferentiate d sensorium . W e cannot g o int o wha t th e scientist s say , bu t a s fa r a s th e theor y o f ar t i s concerned, w e ca n b e sur e tha t thi s notio n lead s t o breakin g throug h the barrier s separatin g on e ar t fro m th e othe r i n th e analytica l trend . 200

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts The effect s o f suc h way s o f thinkin g coul d hav e bee n observe d i n th e late nineteent h centur y an d i n th e twentieth . The ide a of merging th e senses , or translatin g th e impressio n receive d by on e sens e int o tha t o f another , i s o f cours e no t a n inventio n o f th e modern age . Eve r since Antiquity, suc h translation s wer e projecte d ont o nature an d use d i n th e arts . On e o f th e mos t famou s example s i s th e "music o f th e spheres. " I t wa s eve n use d a s a scientifi c hypotheses : Robert Flud d explaine d th e "harmon y o f th e spheres " b y assumin g th e existence o f a "spher e pipe, " o n whic h light—th e breat h o f th e Creator, a s i t were—act s a s th e breat h o f ma n act s o n th e air . Particularly sinc e th e lat e Renaissance , attempt s wer e constantl y mad e to conver t suc h belief s int o tangibl e reality : Vincenz o Galilei , th e fathe r of th e famou s physicis t Galile o Galilei , trie d t o buil d an d perfec t th e color piano. 74 In ar t theor y o f that period , synaesthesi a wa s an approac h often used . Poussin' s famou s lette r concernin g th e differen t mode s o f pictorial expressio n i s perhap s th e mos t importan t testimon y t o it : basing himsel f o n th e Gree k theor y o f musica l modes , h e translate d them int o type s o f pictorial expression. 75 In th e mid-nineteent h centur y th e leanin g toward s mergin g th e senses an d th e arts , o r a t leas t finding som e analogie s betwee n them , played a n importan t par t i n artisti c creation . Historian s o f th e visua l arts a s wel l a s student s o f th e othe r art s an d o f aestheti c though t ofte n spoke o f "correspondences " betwee n th e art s o r o f th e Gesamtkunstwerk (the comprehensiv e wor k o f art) . Her e I shall conside r onl y som e o f th e most conspicuou s formulation s o f th e subjec t i n ar t theory . 2. CHEVREU L

I shal l begi n wit h Miche l Eugen e Chevreu l (1786—1889) , a professo r o f organic chemistr y famou s i n hi s tim e fo r hi s stud y o f th e component s of fat s an d th e natur e o f soap . I n hi s yout h h e wa s appointe d directo r of a laborator y i n a larg e Gobeli n factor y an d mad e a significan t stud y of dyes. H e summe d u p hi s findings i n a large tome , De la hi du contraste simultane des couleurs, 16 which appeare d i n 183 9 and becam e th e basi s fo r many nineteenth-centur y colo r studies . Chevreu l obviousl y deal s wit h sense impression s fro m a poin t o f vie w differen t fro m tha t o f th e 201

Modern Theories of Art student o f art . However , i n wha t h e adduce s fro m th e question s h e investigated, th e historia n o f aestheti c though t wil l find muc h tha t i s new an d als o significan t fo r th e stud y o f art . Perhap s mos t importan t are hi s emphases . Chevreul, w e mus t remember , worke d i n a n industry ; h e wa s there fore concerne d bot h wit h ho w object s i n whic h dye s pla y a majo r rol e are produce d an d wit h ho w th e spectator—her e on e shoul d perhap s say the prospectiv e customer—perceive s them . I n principle , h e accept s the commo n wisdo m o f hi s time : t o for m a harmony , color s mus t b e perceived i n a successio n o f tones . W e recal l tha t fro m precisel y th e same observation—tha t is , the differenc e betwee n th e senses—Lessin g concluded tha t th e art s o f spac e an d time , tha t is , o f simultaneit y an d succession, ca n neve r b e united . Wha t i s permitte d t o literatur e (lik e music, a n ar t o f time ) i s no t permitte d t o sculptur e an d painting , art s of space. 77 Wha t i s appropriat e fo r on e ar t canno t b e transferre d t o o r translated int o another . Wha t Chevreu l adde d t o thi s genera l principl e does no t alway s observ e th e officia l line ; i t compel s th e studen t t o devote som e carefu l attentio n t o hi s work . Among ChevreuP s contribution s t o th e theor y o f ar t (thoug h i t wa s not hi s intentio n t o discus s th e arts) , tw o point s shoul d b e considere d in ou r presen t context . First , h e doe s no t se e th e differenc e i n th e perception o f th e differen t sense s a s a n unbridgeabl e abyss ; ther e ar e similarities a s wel l a s difference s betwee n th e perception s o f th e ey e and th e ear , touch , taste , an d smell . H e begin s hi s discussio n o f th e differences betwee n th e sense s with wha t sound s almos t lik e an apology : "If i t i s philosophica l t o explor e wha t th e senses , i n thei r structur e an d function, hav e i n common , i t i s no t les s s o t o find ou t wha t ar e th e special difference s tha t distinguis h betwee n them " (^3 1 #67). I t i s unde r the headin g o f a "doubl e relationship " (double rapport) that h e investi gates th e impression s o f al l th e senses , an d particularl y th e perceptio n of color , hi s majo r subject . The secon d poin t i s eve n les s revolutionary . I t consist s i n explicitl y making th e spectato r a kin d o f las t resor t i n investigatin g th e relation ships betwee n color s an d sounds . N o word s nee d b e waste d t o sho w that th e spectator , i n on e for m o r another , wa s alway s a t th e bac k o f art theoreticians ' minds . I t is , however , tru e tha t i n moder n time s th e 202

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts emphasis i n assessin g relationship s betwee n differen t medi a ha s bee n shifted t o th e spectato r o r th e audienc e i n general . Chevreu l reflect s this shift , an d h e doe s s o particularl y clearl y i n hi s treatmen t o f th e interaction o f th e differen t senses . The greates t proximity , Chevreu l believes , prevail s betwee n hearin g and sight . Everybod y "know s th e reconciliatio n (rapprochement) on e ha s made betwee n sound s an d colors " (£3£;973) - ' n ou r presen t context , i t may b e wort h recallin g tha t i n th e comparison s o f th e sense s an d o f th e arts base d o n the m tha t ha d bee n mad e throughou t th e ages , sigh t an d hearing, o r paintin g an d music , wer e a s a rul e considere d th e mai n protagonists. "Whic h i s th e mor e damagin g t o a man , t o los e hi s sigh t or hi s hearing?"—s o Leonard o asks , takin g th e selectio n o f thes e tw o particular sense s a s a matter o f course. 78 Chevreu l i s naturally awar e o f the oppositio n betwee n thes e tw o senses ; h e canno t hav e faile d t o not e that placin g the m sid e b y sid e i n thi s wa y onl y deepen s th e contras t between them . An d ye t h e finds parallels , o r "analogies, " a s h e ha s it , between th e tw o senses . There ar e t o Chevreu l tw o principa l kind s o f analogie s betwee n hearing an d sight , on e i n th e domai n o f wha t ma y b e describe d a s th e "objective" existenc e o f th e sens e impressions , th e othe r "subjective, " pertaining t o ou r perceptio n o f sound s an d colors . Th e first analogy , only briefl y indicated , i s anchored i n th e scienc e of the time : both soun d and color s ar e propagate d b y wave s (£3£;973) . Th e theor y o f wave s refers t o somethin g takin g plac e outsid e th e spectator ; i t warrant s a n "objective" analog y betwee n color s an d sounds . More spac e i s devote d t o th e othe r analogy , whic h i s i n th e wa y w e perceive th e object s o f th e tw o senses . I n dealin g wit h perception , i t i s true, Chevreu l claim s tha t "toda y th e specifi c differenc e betwee n sound s and color s strike s m e mor e tha n thei r generi c resemblance " (£3£;974) . For th e stud y o f nineteenth-centur y ar t theory , however , hi s vie w o f the "generi c resemblance " i s o f mor e interest . I t i s significant , I think , that Chevreu l found s thi s kin d o f resemblanc e primaril y i n aesthetic experience. I t i s th e harmon y o f beautifull y ordere d color s tha t i s analogous t o th e harmon y o f beautifull y ordere d sound s (S37*>977)- 79 H e recalls th e eighteenth-centur y Frenc h Jesui t priest , Loui s Bertran d Cas tel (who m Roussea u calle d "th e Do n Quixot e o f Mathematics") , wh o 203

Modern Theories of Art invented th e so-calle d ocula r clavecin , i n whic h colore d tape s represent ing harpsicord o r claveci n wire s presente d a color pagean t i n a darkene d room. (Incidentally , i t ma y b e wort h recallin g tha t i n ou r ow n tim e Scriabin an d Schoenber g hav e experimented wit h th e projectio n o f ligh t by colo r organs). 80 ChevreuPs compariso n o f color s an d sound s i s o n a hig h conceptua l level, and , a t leas t implicitly , raise s question s o f far-reachin g conse quence. Sounds , h e believes , hav e a n existenc e o f thei r own , thei r reality i s independen t o f anythin g els e (£36;97$) . D o color s als o hav e a n existence o f thei r own , a bein g tha t woul d b e comparabl e t o tha t o f sounds? Chevreul , w e shoul d no t forget , doe s no t spea k o f th e us e o f colors i n painting ; hi s concern s ar e tapestrie s an d carpets . An d ye t h e sometimes anticipate s muc h late r development s bot h i n paintin g an d i n the theor y o f art . Befor e followin g ChevreuP s compariso n o f sound s and colors , w e shoul d mak e clea r t o ourselve s wha t i s actuall y bein g asked whe n on e wonder s whethe r color s hav e a n existenc e o f thei r own, comparabl e t o tha t o f sounds . A n analysi s o f ChevreuP s formula tion necessaril y lead s u s t o th e conclusio n tha t wha t hi s questio n actually amount s t o i s whether colo r ca n b e perceive d a s detached fro m the object s "on " whic h i t i s normally see n (£36 f #76). The formulatio n i s not a s strange a s i t ma y see m a t first. Th e studen t of colo r theorie s wil l remembe r th e view , s o ofte n expressed , t o th e effect tha t w e canno t see color s a s such , onl y colore d objects . Fo r ages , the Aristotelia n tradition , whic h ha d suc h a n overwhelmin g influenc e on Europea n scientifi c thought , claime d tha t colo r i s a quality o f object s and therefor e canno t b e detache d fro m them . Th e precis e terminolog y of th e Aristotelia n traditio n declare s tha t colo r i s "th e surfac e o f objects." 81 Now, ther e ar e condition s unde r whic h w e d o perceiv e pur e colors . A ra y o f su n refracte d i n a pris m an d reflecte d ont o a whit e surfac e shows u s pur e colors . Th e colo r i s her e "pure, " s o w e understand , because i t i s detache d fro m an y specifi c objec t an d doe s no t evok e th e association o f a n object . Bu t doe s thi s als o hol d tru e fo r ordinar y experience? Science , isolatin g it s objec t fro m everyda y experience , cre ates artificia l conditions . Ar e w e likel y t o experienc e suc h pur e color s 204

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts outside th e laboratory ? Chevreu l doubt s it . The reaso n fo r hi s scepticis m is tha t th e vas t majorit y o f peopl e wil l confoun d th e colo r wit h th e object o n whic h i t appears ; whe n peopl e retai n th e memor y o f colors , these color s ar e alway s attache d t o materia l object s (^37;976) . I t i s thi s adherence t o object s tha t prevent s color s fro m havin g a n independen t existence. Sound s d o hav e suc h a n existenc e becaus e the y ar e no t attached t o anythin g beside s themselves . I f w e voic e thi s ide a i n th e terminology o f aesthetics , w e wil l hav e t o sa y tha t color s fulfil l a mimetic functio n (the y conjur e u p a n object) , whil e sound s d o not . Colors portra y objects , bu t sound s d o not . The moder n reade r canno t hel p speculatin g a s t o wha t Chevreu l would sa y i f h e wer e t o se e a twentieth-centur y "abstract " painting . How woul d h e reflec t o n th e colo r i n a Kandinsky , say , o r a Rothko ? Would h e den y independen t existenc e t o th e color s i n th e work s o f these tw o painters ? An y hypothetica l questio n o f thi s kin d remains , o f course, unanswerable . W e hav e nothin g t o rel y o n bu t ChevreuP s logic . But wer e w e t o follo w ou t hi s logic , w e woul d hav e t o conclud e tha t he woul d accep t suc h painting s a s equivalen t t o music , an d thu s concede t o thei r color s th e sam e ful l an d independen t existenc e that , i n his time , h e granted t o sound s only . In conclusion , I shal l mak e a mor e genera l observation . Chevreu l represents th e though t an d mentalit y o f th e "scientist, " a s th e earl y nineteenth centur y understoo d tha t term . Hi s tur n o f min d wa s clearl y influenced b y th e positivisti c tren d the n beginnin g t o mak e itsel f felt . What counte d fo r hi m wer e "facts " an d objectiv e findings. I t i s inter esting t o not e tha t i n precisel y thes e condition s th e ide a o f th e specta tor, an d o f hi s seemingl y "subjective " reaction s t o externa l stimuli , emerges s o powerfully . Th e decisiv e fact s Chevreu l adduce s i n orde r t o grant o r den y independen t existenc e t o soun d an d colo r ar e no t thei r —objective, measurable—mod e o f propagation ; i n this , a s w e hav e seen, the y ar e identical . Wher e the y diffe r i s principall y i n ho w th e spectator perceive s them , an d h e perceive s the m differentl y no t onl y because h e perceive s the m b y differen t sense s (hearin g o r sight ) bu t mainly becaus e h e perceive s the m i n differen t matrixes , a s i t were . Colors evok e association s o f objects , sound s d o not . I t i s thi s reactio n 205-

Modern Theories of Art or behavio r o f th e spectato r tha t ultimatel y decide s th e philosophica l standing o f colo r an d soun d and , b y implication , o f th e art s base d on them . 3. DELACROI X

The intellectua l climat e o f th e earl y an d mid-nineteent h centur y mad e it possibl e fo r th e idea s o f synaesthesi a t o permeat e th e though t o f th e artists themselves . Amon g th e painter s o f tha t tim e on e wil l hardl y find a bette r exampl e o f thi s learnin g tha n Eugen e Delacroix . I shal l tr y t o outline Delacroix' s significanc e fo r th e ar t theor y o f hi s centur y i n a later chapter. 82 Her e 1 shal l onl y commen t o n hi s view s concernin g th e relationships betwee n th e arts . Fo r Delacroix , a s fo r Chevreul , thi s primarily mean t th e relation s betwee n soun d an d color , tha t is , betwee n music an d painting , thoug h h e als o mad e som e interestin g observation s on th e rol e o f touc h i n hi s reflection s o n painting . Delacroix wa s concerne d wit h music , bot h i n listenin g t o i t an d i n trying t o com e t o term s wit h th e theoretica l problem s i t present s t o th e music love r an d mor e specifically , t o th e painter . H e entertaine d friend ships wit h musicians , primaril y wit h Frederi c Chopin , an d derive d a great dea l o f inspiratio n fro m thes e contacts . Al l thi s followed , o f course, fro m a general dispositio n o f th e times . I t ha s bee n pointe d ou t that Delacroi x wa s deepl y affecte d b y th e tren d o f thought , prevailin g in larg e part s o f Frenc h cultur e i n hi s time , tha t sa w i n th e depictio n o f the intangibl e th e majo r ai m o f painting. 83 Now , i f painting i s to expres s the intangible , i t i s musi c rathe r tha n an y o f th e othe r art s (suc h a s sculpture o r poetry ) tha t become s th e mai n model , tha t show s mos t affinities. Th e ne w prestig e o f musi c a s a mode l fo r th e arts , whic h ha s not gon e unnotice d b y scholars, 84 als o le d t o a certai n blurrin g o f th e outlines dividin g th e specifi c value s o f paintin g fro m thos e o f music . Delacroix's awarenes s o f th e othe r arts , o f thei r characte r an d inter relations, i s ofte n manifeste d i n hi s Journal. However , i t woul d b e difficult t o clai m tha t h e ha d a consisten t an d unifie d approac h t o th e intricate problem s pose d b y th e doctrin e o f synaesthesia . Sometime s h e compares th e art s wit h eac h other , thu s bringin g ou t th e individual , unique natur e o f eac h rathe r tha n wha t the y hav e i n common . I n suc h 206

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts notes on e canno t hel p feelin g th e surviva l o f th e Renaissanc e paragone tradition, which , a s is well known , stresse d th e differences betwee n th e arts, no t thei r commo n nature . Mor e often , however , h e soften s th e juxtaposition, transferrin g feature s fro m on e ar t t o th e other . Thi s i s particularly tru e fo r musi c an d painting . From musi c h e learne d abou t th e relationshi p betwee n scienc e an d the art s i n general . O n Apri l 7 , 1849 , a conversatio n wit h hi s frien d Frederic Chopi n reveale d t o Delacroi x th e profoun d identit y o f scienc e and art . Wha t establishe s logi c i n music? : thi s wa s th e questio n th e painter pose d t o th e musician . Chopi n mad e Delacroi x fee l "wha t counterpoint an d harmon y are ; ho w th e fugu e i s lik e pur e logic i n music. . . ." That feeling , h e notes , gave hi m an "ide a o f the pleasure i n science tha t i s experience d b y philosopher s worth y o f tha t name. " Science "i s no t wha t i s ordinaril y understoo d unde r tha t term , tha t i s to say , a departmen t o f knowledg e whic h differ s fro m art. " I t is , as he puts it , "reaso n itself , adorne d b y genius." 85 Scienc e itself , then , ac quires a n aestheti c quality . I t i s no t a n accumulatio n o f individua l cognitions abou t th e world , a kin d o f stocktakin g o f wha t i s encoun tered i n reality , bu t rathe r perfec t orde r o f th e kin d tha t musi c make s accessible t o th e senses . N o wonde r tha t Delacroi x fel t h e coul d appl y the sam e insigh t t o paintin g a s well a s to music . A fe w year s later , o n Decembe r 12 , 18^6 , he look s t o Mozar t fo r guidance i n a matte r o f grea t consequenc e fo r a Romanti c artist , particularly i n tha t lat e stag e wher e awarenes s o f th e autonom y o f ar t was gainin g increasin g significance . Delacroi x wa s no t concerne d wit h the question , s o importan t fo r th e artist s o f man y ages , o f ho w t o express passio n convincingl y withou t endangerin g th e genuine characte r of ar t as such. T o put i t i n present-day terms : how do you convincingl y express emotion s withou t turnin g you r pictur e int o a poster ? Here , i t seemed t o Delacroix , th e grea t compose r o f musi c hold s a n answer . "Mozart write s i n a lette r somewhere , speakin g o f th e principl e tha t music ca n expres s al l th e passions , al l th e sorrows , al l sufferings : 'Nevertheless, th e passions , whethe r violen t o r not , shoul d neve r b e so expressed a s t o reac h th e poin t o f causin g disgust ; an d music , eve n i n situations o f the greatest horror , shoul d neve r b e painful t o th e ear, but should flatte r an d char m it , an d thereb y alway s remai n music. ' " 8 6 The 207

Modern Theories of Art idea itsel f i s o f cours e no t new , i t ha s ofte n bee n expresse d an d reformulated. Wha t i s her e o f significanc e i s tha t Delacroi x turn s t o a musician fo r a n answer , obviousl y believin g tha t wha t i s tru e fo r musi c can als o b e vali d fo r painting . Delacroix's synaestheti c reflection s ar e no t limite d t o th e mutua l connections an d influence s o f paintin g an d music . I t i s tru e that , fo r reasons w e hav e indicated , musi c playe d a particularl y significan t par t in th e though t o f painter s wh o aime d t o rende r th e intangible , bu t sheer tangibilit y wa s a dimensio n o f experienc e the y coul d il l affor d t o neglect. An d indee d i n a length y entr y i n hi s Journal, made o n Januar y *3> 1 %S7—one o f * n e note s h e wrot e dow n i n preparatio n fo r th e dictionary o f pictoria l term s h e planne d t o compose—w e find som e interesting observation s o n touc h an d o n wha t touc h ca n mea n fo r painting. Delacroi x mad e thi s entr y a t leas t fou r decade s befor e th e problem o f touch—whethe r rea l o r imagined—aros e conspicuousl y i n the writing s o f ar t historian s an d interpreter s o f style . I t wa s onl y i n 1901 tha t Aloi s Riegl , mainl y i n hi s Spatromische Kunstindusthe (Lat e Roman Art s an d Crafts) , contraste d "tactic " (o r "haptic, " a s h e late r called it ) experiences , tha t is , impression s appealin g t o th e sens e o f touch, wit h wha t h e calle d "optical " impressions. 87 I n speakin g abou t "tactic," Rieg l di d no t mea n actua l tangibility ; rathe r h e use d th e ter m in a wa y tha t ca n b e describe d a s metaphorical . RiegP s "haptic " form s are totall y locate d i n painting , i n a n ar t that , i n actua l fact , i s experi enced b y th e ey e only . A few year s befor e Riegl , anothe r write r o n art , Bernard Berenso n i n hi s influentia l wor k The Florentine Painters (1896) , described Giott o a s "giving tactil e value s t o retina l impressions." 88 Rieg l and Berenson , an d th e man y student s followin g i n th e footstep s o f thes e unequal scholars , wer e drawin g th e specific , critica l conclusion s fro m the developmen t o f synaestheti c though t i n earlie r part s o f th e nine teenth century . I n th e i8^os , whe n Delacroi x wa s reflectin g o n touc h in painting , man y o f th e idea s tha t wer e t o dominat e late r thinkin g existed onl y i n embryoni c form . Th e mai n lin e o f thought , however , can b e clearl y discerned . That w e ar e her e witnessin g a n importan t ide a i n a ver y earl y stag e can bes t b e see n whe n w e conside r wha t i s missin g i n Delacroix' s thought; i t suffer s mainl y fro m insufficien t analytica l distinctio n be 208

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts tween th e differen t aspect s o f th e notion . In speakin g abou t touch , Delacroix ha s two differen t thing s i n mind , an d sometimes the y canno t be clearl y distinguishe d fro m eac h other . I n on e sens e o f "touch, " i t is the pictur e a s a n artifac t tha t i s considered . Ther e ar e man y way s o f studying a painting , w e rea d i n th e Journal, an d on e o f the m i s t o observe th e painter' s wa y o f touchin g th e canvas . Thes e touche s leav e traces o n th e work o f art, and th e spectator, o r connoisseur , ca n follo w them. Th e painter's touch , Delacroi x believes , "give s t o th e paintin g a n accent whic h th e tints , melte d together , canno t produce." 89 Moreover , when touc h i s "applie d vigorously, " i t make s som e o f th e object s o r figures depicte d "com e forward. " H e note s criticall y tha t "man y mas ters hav e take n car e no t t o permi t th e spectato r t o feel " th e painter' s touch. Thes e master s believ e tha t complet e finish i s an embodimen t o f perfection. I t i s no t difficul t t o sens e i n thes e remark s th e ech o o f Delacroix's antagonis m t o academi c art , perhaps particularl y t o Ingres . The trace s lef t b y th e painter' s hand , however , ar e no t th e onl y meaning o f "touch. " I n anothe r sense , tha t ter m refer s t o th e materia l reality depicte d i n th e painting , an d i t evoke s feeling s an d memorie s o f texture. I n othe r words , her e "touch " refer s t o a dimensio n o f realit y that ca n reall y b e experience d b y physica l touc h alone . Som e artists , Delacroix says , obviousl y referrin g t o representative s o f th e academi c trend, believ e tha t b y avoidin g touc h "on e get s clos e t o th e effec t o f nature. Suc h a belie f i s 'puerile. ' " I n a n illuminatin g aside , h e adds : "One migh t jus t a s wel l pu t rea l colore d relief s ont o one' s picture." 90 This implici t juxtapositio n o f rea l natur e an d colore d relie f shows , I believe, tha t i n speakin g abou t touc h Delacroi x di d no t hav e bulgin g volume i n mind . Shee r mas s an d volum e ar e commo n t o th e natura l object an d th e colore d relief . Wher e the y diffe r i s i n th e materia l character o f th e bulgin g body . A s opposed t o th e colore d relief , bodie s and object s i n natur e hav e a n infinit e variet y o f textures : the y ar e har d or soft , smoot h o r rough , soli d o r hair y o r fluid, an d s o on . Now , all these qualitie s on e experience s onl y b y rea l touch , b y actua l tactil e experience. I t i s th e imagine d tactil e experienc e tha t th e painte r con jures u p b y a prope r representatio n o f th e object . I n a n engraving , h e says, "th e whol e wealt h o f natur e i s expresse d withou t employin g th e magic o f color—not fo r th e purel y physica l sens e o f sight , bu t fo r th e 209

Modern Theories of Art eyes of the min d an d th e soul ; they behol d th e fresh splendo r i n th e ski n of th e youn g girl, th e wrinkle s o f th e ol d man , th e sof t dept h o f clothes , the transparenc e o f waters , th e farawa y loo k o f skie s an d mountains. " It i s obviou s tha t "touch " her e refer s t o th e materia l natur e itself . Delacroix clearl y assume s th e transfer , o r translation , o f experienc e i n the domai n o f on e sens e int o tha t o f another . 4. BAUDELAIR E

Among th e mos t profoun d and , wit h regar d t o nineteenth-centur y theory o f art , probabl y th e mos t influentia l articulatio n o f th e synaesth etic approac h i s tha t give n b y th e grea t Frenc h poe t an d criti c o f man y arts, Charle s Baudelaire , wh o i n severa l respect s mark s a watershe d o f aesthetic though t i n th e moder n age . Th e scop e an d rang e o f Baude laire's theoretica l reflection s o n th e art s ar e ver y wide . The interrelatio n between th e arts , thoug h no t devoi d o f significance , i s not th e cente r o f his thought , whic h i s dominate d b y othe r themes , suc h a s th e artist' s imagination. W e shal l therefor e no t presen t Baudelaire' s aestheti c though t here; w e shal l d o tha t i n th e las t chapte r o f thi s book. 91 A t thi s stage , I shall onl y summaril y outlin e hi s reflection s o n th e topi c her e discussed , the relationshi p betwee n paintin g an d sculptur e an d th e othe r arts . Baudelaire's celebrate d collectio n o f poems , The Flowers of Evil (Les Fleurs du mal), contain s a poe m calle d "Correspondances " tha t wa s t o exert a great influenc e o n moder n poetry . A poem, o f course , i s usuall y not a theoretica l text , bu t i n thi s cas e Baudelair e wa s makin g a n important statemen t abou t th e link s betwee n th e senses , and , b y impli cation, betwee n th e arts . Thi s rhyme d statement , a s Welle k claims , served a s a startin g poin t fo r a renewe d interes t i n synaesthesia. 92 Th e opening stanza s o f th e poe m shoul d b e quote d i n ou r discussion . Nature i s a temple wher e livin g pillar s At time s allo w confuse d word s t o com e forth ; There ma n passe s throug h forest s o f symbol s Which observ e hi m wit h familia r eyes . Like lon g echoe s whic h i n a distance ar e mingle d In a dark an d profoun d uniso n 210

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts Vast a s night an d light , Perfumes, color s an d sound s answe r on e another. 93 In thi s poe m Baudelair e proclaim s a n occul t theory . I n a broade r discussion o f Baudelaire , i n th e las t chapte r o f thi s book , w e shal l se e how wid e th e rang e o f hi s source s was . Importan t amon g the m wer e esoteric doctrine s an d mystica l trends , particularl y th e theorie s o f th e Swedish scientis t an d see r Emanue l Swedenborg . Bu t i t wa s fro m sources close r t o hi s ow n tim e an d t o th e art s wit h whic h h e wa s concerned tha t h e coul d deriv e inspiratio n a s t o th e correspondence s between colors , sounds , an d smells . Fro m th e Germa n Romanti c poe t and compose r E . T . A . Hoffman n h e learne d a grea t dea l abou t th e correspondences betwee n color s an d sounds . In hi s Salo n 184 6 review , Baudelaire quote s a lon g passag e fro m Hoffmann . Thi s passag e i s s o important fo r th e understandin g o f Baudelair e tha t i t i s wort h givin g a t length. It i s no t onl y i n dream s [s o Hoffman n writes] , o r i n tha t mil d deliriu m which precede s sleep , bu t i t i s eve n awakene d whe n I hea r music—tha t perception o f a n analog y an d a n intimat e connectio n betwee n colors , sounds, and perfumes . I t seem s t o m e tha t al l thes e thing s wer e create d b y on e an d the sam e ra y o f light , an d tha t thei r combinatio n mus t resul t i n a wonderfu l concert o f harmony. The smell of red and brown marigolds above all produces a magical effec t o n m y being. I t make s m e fall int o a deep reverie , in whic h I seem to hear th e solemn, deep tones of the oboe in the distance. 94 Considering Baudelaire' s statur e a s a critic , w e mus t as k wha t thes e and simila r statement s actuall y meant . T o tak e a n example ; what di d h e actually wis h t o sa y whe n h e wrot e tha t "n o musicia n excel s a s Wagne r does i n paintin g spac e an d depth , bot h materia l an d spiritual"? 95 O r when, i n a lon g an d seriou s study , h e asserte d tha t "colo r speaks"? 96 For Baudelaire , a divinel y inspire d poet , th e synaestheti c metapho r ha d semimagical power . Thi s rea l char m o f goin g beyon d th e boundarie s separating th e sense s ma y als o hav e bee n reflecte d i n hi s persona l experience. Colo r induce d i n Baudelair e a state o f euphori a comparabl e to th e stat e t o whic h h e wa s brough t b y music. 97 Whil e al l thes e suggestions ma y b e true , on e finds i t difficul t t o accep t the m a s a ful l explanation. Baudelair e wa s no t onl y a poet ; h e wa s als o a grea t critic . 211

Modern Theories of Art He ma y no t hav e bee n a philosophe r inten t o n establishin g shar p line s of demarcatio n betwee n on e domai n an d th e other , a s Hege l ha d been , yet hi s though t i s not devoi d o f a specific severit y an d strictness . What , then, di d h e mea n b y th e synaestheti c metaphors ? The answe r i s no t easil y given . Som e o f Baudelaire' s theoretica l statements see m t o plainl y contradic t an y seriou s synaestheti c consid eration; the y indicat e tha t h e a t leas t hesitate d t o tak e hi s metaphor s a t face value . Thu s h e declare s tha t u the encroachmen t o f on e ar t upo n the other " i s a vice . "Ever y art, " th e reade r i s told , "mus t b e sufficien t to itsel f an d a t th e sam e tim e sta y withi n it s providentia l limits. " Ther e is i n hi s age , h e admits , a tendenc y toward s th e fusin g o f th e arts , bu t this tendenc y i s a sympto m o f a n ag e o f decadence. 98 Readin g suc h sober warnings , th e moder n studen t wonder s whethe r h e shoul d no t consider al l Baudelaire' s statement s ascribin g sound s t o color , o r colo r (and space ) t o sounds , a s mer e literar y flourishes , metaphor s tha t ar e not t o b e take n seriously . Other considerations , however , see m t o poin t i n th e opposit e direc tion. Thoug h Baudelair e ma y no t hav e take n hi s metaphor s literally , h e does see m t o hav e believe d tha t ther e i s a kind o f rea l translation , base d on hidde n affinities , fro m on e sens e int o anothe r an d fro m on e ar t int o another. T o som e contemporar y critic s wh o claime d tha t music , unlik e painting an d poetry , i s u not abl e t o translat e al l o r anythin g wit h precision," h e answer s that , u p t o a certai n point , thi s i s indeed so , bu t this i s no t th e whol e story . "Musi c translate s i n it s ow n wa y an d usin g means tha t ar e prope r t o it." 99 Seein g ho w consistentl y Baudelair e employs th e synaestheti c metaphor s make s on e hesitat e t o assum e tha t they wer e merel y mean t a s embellishments , devoi d o f rea l substance . But w e d o no t hav e t o rel y o n occasiona l metaphor s only . I n th e theoretical essay s h e mad e som e statement s o f principle , which , eve n i f not take n a t fac e value , deman d t o b e considere d seriously . T o adduc e an obviou s example , I shall mention th e discussio n o f color i n hi s revie w of th e 184 6 Salon . "I n colo r ar e t o b e foun d harmony , melody , an d counterpoint." Thi s i s not mean t i n a general way . Baudelair e explains : Harmony i s the basis of the theor y o f color. Melody is unity within color , o r overall color . Melody call s for a cadence; i t i s a whole, i n whic h ever y effec t contribute s to the general effect . ,0 ° 212

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts Where precisel y i s th e lin k betwee n colo r an d sound , o r betwee n painting an d music ? Wher e d o th e tw o sense s mee t an d interpenetrate ? It i s difficul t t o say . Baudelair e seem s t o impl y tha t i t i s th e experienc e of th e spectato r tha t provide s th e link . T o th e significanc e o f th e spectator i n hi s though t w e shal l com e bac k a t a late r stag e o f ou r survey.101 Her e I shoul d lik e onl y t o mentio n tha t i n hi s essa y o n th e Tannhauser performanc e i n Paris, 102 h e make s a single , bu t rathe r clear , suggestion. A s w e hav e alread y noted , h e say s tha t "musi c translate s i n its ow n wa y an d usin g mean s tha t ar e prope r t o it. " T o thi s h e make s an important , i f brief , addition : "I n music , just a s i n paintin g an d eve n in th e writte n word , whic h i s nevertheless th e mos t positiv e o f th e arts , there i s always a lacuna whic h i s filled b y th e listener' s imagination." 103 Here then , i n th e spectator' s o r listener' s imagination , th e "translation " takes place . In Baudelaire' s reflectio n o n th e relationshi p betwee n th e arts , colo r and soun d hol d primac y o f place . H e als o devote d som e attentio n t o the ar t o f sculpture . The nineteent h century , particularl y i n France , ha s littl e t o sho w i n the wa y o f theor y an d criticis m o f sculpture . Onl y earl y i n th e centur y do Germa n philosopher s dea l wit h sculptur e a s th e ar t typica l o f Gree k culture, a s w e hav e see n i n Hegel' s deliberation s o n ar t forms. 104 In mid-nineteenth-century France , Viollet-le-Duc , architec t an d theoreti cian o f architecture , a s a matte r o f cours e treate d sculptur e a s a n ar t supplementary t o architecture. 10S A t th e en d o f th e century , however , we d o no t find a theor y o f sculpture . Baudelaire , i t ha s recentl y bee n said, seem s t o hav e bee n th e onl y autho r t o produc e a "romanti c theor y of sculpture." 106 T o b e sure , sculptur e i s no t a majo r them e i n Baude laire's ar t theory , bu t h e returne d t o th e subjec t severa l times , devotin g short section s t o sculptur e i n hi s review s o f th e Salon s o f 1845: , 1846 , and 1859. 107 I n th e year s betwee n 184 ^ an d 18^ 9 hi s view s o n man y subjects ma y hav e changed , bu t the y remaine d remarkabl y stabl e wit h regard t o sculpture . I n th e thre e review s mentioned , th e carefu l reade r can detec t th e outline s o f a theor y o f sculpture . I shal l presen t the m briefly. I shal l begi n wit h th e positio n Baudelair e assign s t o sculpture . In general, h e wa s no t give n t o rankin g th e arts ; h e stresse s thei r possibl e merging muc h mor e tha n thei r possibl e hierarchy . Whe n h e speak s o f 213

Modern Theories of Art sculpture, however , h e ofte n suggest s it s lo w rank , sometime s usin g very stron g word s t o expres s hi s disregard fo r it . A section i n hi s revie w of th e 184 6 Salo n bear s th e memorabl e titl e "Wh y Sculptur e i s Tire some." 108 An d h e ha s good reaso n t o find sculptur e boring . I t i s in fact , he thinks , inferio r t o al l th e othe r arts , particularl y painting . Baudelaire's lo w opinio n o f sculptur e ca n b e summe d u p i n thre e points. Hi s reason s refe r t o feature s tha t ar e centra l t o th e characte r o f sculpture, an d these , h e believes , ar e al l "disadvantages.' ' The y ar e no t accidental features ; rather , the y are , a s Baudelair e explicitl y point s out , "a necessar y consequenc e o f it s [tha t is , sculpture's ] mean s an d mate rials." The firs t point—an d i t seem s t o b e th e mos t important—i s tha t sculpture i s clos e t o nature . Thi s clai m offer s th e historia n a n excellen t opportunity t o appreciat e th e intellectua l distanc e betwee n th e begin ning an d th e clima x o f th e moder n age , tha t is , th e distanc e betwee n the Renaissanc e an d th e nineteent h century . I n th e Renaissance , a n author coul d hardl y pa y a greate r complimen t t o a wor k o f art , o r t o an ar t form , tha n t o declar e tha t i t wa s clos e t o nature . (This , inciden tally, wa s tru e regardles s o f ho w sophisticated , o r primitive , th e wor k of ar t o r th e ar t for m migh t be. ) Fo r th e mid-nineteent h century , "closeness t o nature " i s n o longe r a complimentar y description . Wit h Baudelaire, i t rathe r sound s lik e a censure . Sculpture , h e say s i n hi s 1846 essay , i s "a s bruta l an d positiv e a s natur e herself. " T o properl y understand wha t Baudelair e means , w e shoul d kee p i n min d tha t h e i s not speakin g o f a style—say , realism—tha t make s th e wor k o f ar t appear like nature ; h e i s speakin g o f th e ver y mediu m o f sculpture , o f the ar t for m itself . The statu e i s clos e t o natur e becaus e i t i s a rea l object , a three dimensional thin g o r body . Tha t a piec e o f sculptur e i s a rea l object , a material thin g rathe r tha n a n imag e conjure d u p b y art , i s reflecte d i n the wa y primitiv e peopl e reac t t o it . I n reviewin g th e Salo n o f 18C9 , Baudelaire offer s th e followin g piec e o f anthropologica l speculation : Faced wit h a n objec t take n fro m natur e an d represente d b y sculpture — that i s t o say , a round , three-dimensiona l objec t abou t whic h on e ca n mov e freely, and , lik e th e natura l objec t itself , envelope d i n atmosphere—th e peasant, th e savag e o r th e primitiv e ma n feel s n o indecision ; wherea s a 214

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts painting, becaus e o f it s immens e pretension s an d it s paradoxica l an d abstrac tive nature, will disquiet an d upse t him. ,09 Primitive people an d savages—s o w e can explicat e Baudelaire' s though t — a r e use d t o handlin g materia l objects , an d therefor e a piec e o f sculpture, whic h i s suc h a n object , doe s no t caus e the m feeling s o f anxiety. Painting , o n th e othe r hand , i s a mor e abstract , a mor e "spiritual" art , an d i t i s precisel y thi s spiritualit y tha t upset s th e primitive mind . A second reaso n fo r Baudelaire' s lo w estee m o f sculptur e i s what h e calls th e "vaguenes s an d ambiguity " o f thi s art. 110 Sculptur e i s ambigu ous, whil e paintin g i s not . Tha t vaguenes s i s locate d i n th e wa y th e spectator look s a t th e wor k o f art . Paintin g require s th e spectato r t o take u p on e singl e poin t o f view , an d tha t vantag e poin t i s prescribed : necessarily i t i s i n fron t o f th e painting . Sculptur e allows—an d some times eve n invites—th e spectato r t o mov e aroun d th e figure, offerin g him " a hundre d differen t point s o f view. " Ultimately , then , i t wil l b e the spectator , no t th e artist , wh o wil l choos e th e poin t o f vie w fro m which t o loo k a t th e statue , and , a s a result , th e spectato r wil l als o determine wha t h e wil l actuall y se e o f th e wor k o f art . This, o f course , i s n o nove l observation . Tha t paintin g offer s bu t on e vantage poin t whil e sculptur e offer s many—thi s wa s a regula r topos i n the ar t literatur e o f th e Renaissanc e an d Baroque , an d wa s repeate d a great man y times . In thes e periods , advocate s o f sculptur e stresse d th e multitude o f viewpoint s a statue offer s th e spectato r a s a reaso n fo r th e superiority o f sculptur e ove r painting . Th e carvin g o f th e statue , the y said, i s a mor e comple x an d difficul t affai r tha n th e paintin g o f a picture. " I maintain, " wrot e Benvenut o Cellin i i n a famous letter , "tha t among al l the art s base d o n design , sculptur e i s seven time s th e greatest , because a statu e mus t hav e eigh t show-side s an d al l shoul d b e equall y good." 111 I n th e nineteent h century , th e criteri a fo r assessin g th e valu e of a n ar t for m hav e changed . Now , th e difficultie s overcom e (possibl y still a craftman' s outlook ) ca n n o longe r serv e a s a yardstic k fo r measuring th e valu e o f a wor k o f ar t o r a n ar t form . No w othe r yardsticks ar e employed , amon g the m als o "spirituality. " There i s stil l anothe r reaso n fo r Baudelaire' s smal l regar d fo r sculp 21*

Modern Theories of Art ture. I n movin g aroun d a piec e o f sculpture , "i t ofte n happen s tha t through a chance tric k o f the light , a n effec t o f th e lamp , [the spectator ] may discove r a beaut y whic h i s no t a t al l th e on e th e artis t ha d i n min d — a n d thi s i s a humiliatin g thin g fo r him." 112 I t i s wort h noting : Baudelaire doe s no t questio n tha t th e configuratio n s o accidentall y discovered i s reall y beautiful ; wha t humiliate s th e artis t i s no t th e lac k of beaut y i n hi s work ; i t i s rathe r tha t th e beaut y tha t i s reall y ther e i s not th e on e h e ha d i n mind . Th e ultimat e valu e o f th e wor k o f a r t — this i s th e ide a tha t underlie s al l Baudelaire' s aesthetics—follow s fro m its bein g altogethe r th e intentiona l produc t o f man. A beauty tha t i s no t intended belong s t o natur e rathe r tha n t o art . Given al l thes e reasons , i t follow s tha t th e audienc e o f sculptur e consists, a s w e hav e alread y seen , o f "th e peasant , th e savage , o r th e primitive man. " Thi s i s th e typ e o f perso n wh o canno t gras p th e spirituality o f painting . Use d t o handlin g materia l things , th e primitiv e spectator canno t comprehen d somethin g tha t i s mere appearance . Loo k how th e primitiv e react s t o painting , Baudelair e seem s t o b e saying . H e tells th e stor y o f th e nativ e chie f who m a n America n painte r repre sented i n profile . Th e chief' s friend s accuse d th e painte r o f havin g robbed hal f o f th e chief' s face , an d laughe d a t th e chie f fo r losin g it . They coul d no t gras p th e abstractio n i n painting . "I n th e sam e wa y monkeys hav e bee n know n t o b e deceive d b y som e magica l paintin g o f nature an d t o g o roun d behin d th e pictur e i n orde r t o find th e othe r side." 113 Sculpture , th e autho r says , i s thu s restricte d b y "barbarou s conditions." Sav e fo r exceptiona l cases , i t "wil l onl y produc e th e marvellous objec t whic h dumbfound s th e ap e an d th e savage. " Baudelaire's treatmen t o f sculpture , fragmentar y an d sketch y a s i t may be , ha s a significanc e tha t goe s beyon d hi s opinion s o f tha t particular art . Wha t follow s fro m i t i s tha t Baudelaire , i n additio n t o his belie f i n th e ultimat e unit y o f ar t (an d i t i s this underlyin g unit y tha t makes th e "translation " fro m on e ar t int o anothe r possible) , als o be lieved i n a hierarch y o f th e arts . Hi s notio n o f suc h a hierarch y i s eve n less articulat e an d explici t tha n hi s concep t o f th e potentia l unit y o f th e arts. Bu t eve n thoug h th e concep t i s vague , ou r autho r obviousl y assumes tha t ther e ar e art s (suc h a s paintin g an d music ) tha t ar e mor e spiritual an d anothe r (sculpture ) tha t i s less so. This imag e o f a hierarc y o f th e arts , vaguel y an d hazil y outline d 216

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts somewhere i n th e backgroun d o f Baudelaire' s thought , i s not historical . To him , sculptur e i s inferio r t o paintin g i n al l time s an d ages . An d ye t this vagu e hierarch y i s no t devoi d o f a suggestio n o f a historica l order . It i s especiall y th e remark s o n sculptur e tha t mak e thi s clear . T o b e sure, i n Baudelaire' s writing s o n th e art s w e canno t find anythin g comparable t o Hegel' s detaile d historica l construction . However , Bau delaire clearl y link s sculptur e wit h th e earl y stage s o f history. Sculpture , then, i s no t onl y th e ar t closes t t o nature , i t no t onl y appeal s t o th e least develope d o f audiences , i t i s also th e ar t typica l o f th e initia l stage s of mankind . "Th e origi n o f sculptur e i s los t i n th e mist s o f time" : thu s begins th e sectio n o n sculptur e i n th e revie w o f th e 184 6 Salon . "W e find, i n fact, " s o h e continues , "tha t al l race s brin g rea l skil l t o th e carving o f fetishe s lon g befor e the y embar k upo n th e ar t o f painting , which i s a n ar t involvin g profoun d though t an d on e whos e ver y enjoy ment demand s a particula r initiation. " Here , then , th e primitiv e char acter o f sculptur e i s clearl y linke d wit h it s origi n i n th e beginning s o f history, an d wit h it s bein g th e ar t intelligibl e an d appealin g t o primitiv e peoples. Painting , a n ar t demandin g though t an d involvin g a n initiation , came a long tim e afte r sculptur e wa s practiced . I t i s not a n exaggeratio n to sa y tha t fo r Baudelair e sculptur e i s th e ar t typica l o f th e earl y state s of mankind. I t i s not surprising , then , tha t i n late r time s sculptur e coul d not remai n a n independen t art . "Onc e ou t o f the primit e era , sculpture , in it s mos t magnificen t development , i s nothin g els e bu t a complementary art." 1 1 4 Vaguel y i n th e background , w e perceiv e th e ide a o f a progres s of art , a progres s tha t lead s fro m a mor e primitiv e t o a mor e sophisti cated ar t form . Di d an y influenc e fro m th e Hegelia n historica l philoso phy o f aesthetic s reac h th e synaestheti c approac h o f th e Frenc h poet ? I t is no t fo r u s her e eve n t o attemp t a n answer. 115 B e tha t a s i t may , i t i s perhaps permissibl e t o se e Baudelair e a s completin g th e developmen t that bega n wit h Lessing .

NOTES 1. B y E . H . Gombrich , i n "Lessing, " Proceedings of the British Academy 43 (1957) : 1 3 3156. Fo r th e sentenc e quoted , se e p . 135 . This pape r i s reprinte d i n Gombrich' s 217

Modern Theories of Art Tributes (Oxford, 1983) . I shal l us e th e origina l edition ; pag e reference s wil l b e given, i n parentheses , i n th e text . 2. Se e G . Paol o Lomazzo , Trattato dell' Arte de la Pittura (Milan , 1584 ; reprinte d Hildesheim, 1968) , p . 28 2 (i n Chapte r 2 o f Boo k 6 , devote d t o th e prattica o f painting). Fo r thi s subjec t i n general , se e Rensselae r W . Lee , Ut pictura poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting (Ne w York , 1967) , an d Mari o Praz , Mnemosyne: The Parallel between Literature and the Visual Arts (Princeton, 1970) . 3. The Art of Painting of Charles Alphonse de Fresnoy, translate d int o Englis h vers e b y William Maso n (York , 1783) , p . 1 . 4. Se e Joshu a Reynolds , Fifteen Discourses Delivered to the Royal Academy (Londo n an d New York , n . d.) , pp . 13 2 o n Shakespear e (eight h discourse ) an d 25 2 o n Michae l Angelo (fifteent h discourse) . Fo r Reynolds' s view s o n art , se e above , pp . 13 2 ff . 5. Th e ful l tex t o f thi s earl y sketc h i s reprinte d i n Hug o Bliimner , ed. , Lessings Laokoon (Berlin , 1880) , pp . 358-359 . 6. Se e G . E . Lessing , Laocoon, translated b y R . Phillimor e (London , n . d.) , p . 3 . Al l quotations fro m Laocoon will b e take n fro m thi s translation . Reference s i n th e text, give n i n parentheses , ar e als o t o thi s edition . 7. Lessing' s Briefe antiquarischen lnhalts have , o f course , frequentl y bee n reprinted . I use th e editio n of Lessings Werke, edited b y Theodo r Matthia s (Leipzig , n . d.) . Fo r the passag e referre d to , se e Vol . V , pp . 13 3 ff . S o fa r a s I know , th e Briefe antiquarischen lnhalts hav e no t appeare d i n a n Englis h translation . 8. Fo r a n interestin g discussio n o f Lessing' s tex t fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f present day semiotics , se e Davi d E . Wellbery , Lessing's Laocoon: Semiotics and Aesthetics in the Age of Reason (Cambridge , 1984) . 9. Roge r d e Piles , Cours de peinture par principes (Paris , 1708) , II , p . 358 . Th e Englis h translation o f thi s work , The Principles of Painting (London , 1743) , wa s no t available t o me . Fo r Roge r d e Pile s (thoug h dealin g mainl y wit h differen t problems), se e Thoma s Puttfarken , Roger de Piles' Theory of Art (Ne w Have n an d London, 1985) . 10. Se e Du Bos, Reflexions critiques sur la poesie et sur la peinture (reprinte d Geneva , 1967), p . 11 1 (p . 41 5 o f th e first volum e i n th e origina l edition) . Fo r Dubos , se e above, pp . 00 0 ff . Historian s o f semiotic s wil l b e intereste d i n th e distinctio n between "aniconic " an d "iconic " sign s tha t i s implie d i n Dubos' s thought . 1 1. Se e Wellbery , Lessing's Laocoon, pp . 10 5 ff . 12. Bliimner , Lessings Laokoon, p. 447 , fo r th e tex t o f th e preparator y note . Se e als o Wellbery, Lessing's Laocoon, p . 106 . 13. Translation s fro m th e first chapte r o f Lessing' s treatis e o n th e fable , fo r whic h see 'Abhandlun g ube r di e Fabel " i n Lessings Werke, ed. Matthias , V , pp . 5 ff. Cf . especially pp . 1 6 ff . 14. Th e ful l titl e o f Herder' s treatis e i s Plastik. Einige Wahrnehmungen uber Form und Gestalt aus Pygmalions bildendem Traume. I use th e edition Johann Gottfried von Herder's sammtliche Werke. Zur schonen Literatur und Kunst, Par t Eleven , Zur romischen Literatur. Antiquarische Aufsa'tze (Tubingen, 1809) , pp . 239-363 . Hereafter , pag e references t o thi s editio n wil l b e given , i n parentheses , i n th e text . Ther e seem s 2l8

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts to b e n o Englis h translatio n o f Plastik. Ther e ar e no t man y moder n discussion s o f this text , bu t se e Bernhar d Schweitzer , "Herder s 'Plastik * un d di e Entstehun g der neuere n Kunstwissenschaft, " i n Schweitzer' s Zur Kunst der Antike: Ausgewahlte Schriften (Tubingen , 1963) , I , pp. 198-252 . 15. Thoug h th e literatur e o n Herde r i s ver y large , w e stil l lac k a thorough discussio n of hi s contributio n t o ou r specifi c field o f study . Interestin g i n a genera l sens e are Isaia h Berlin' s observation s i n Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas (New York , 1976) . H . B . Nisbet , Herder and the Philosophy and History of Science (Cambridge, 1970) , i s usefu l fo r understandin g th e broade r context s o f Herder' s theories o f art . 16. Se e Kar l Borinski , Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, I I (Leipzig, 1924) , pp . 24 0

ff.

17. Se e Leonard o d a Vinci , Treatise on Painting, translated an d annotate d b y Phili p McMahon (Princeton , 1956) , pp . 3 2 ff. I n subsequen t reference s t o thi s edition , I shall give , i n parentheses , th e numbe r o f th e fragmen t rathe r tha n o f th e pag e on whic h i t appears . 18. H e make s thes e distinction s i n Plastik. Page number s cite d i n parenthese s i n th e text ar e t o th e 180 9 editio n mentione d i n not e 14 . 19. I n hi s openin g observation s o n "Dramati c Ar t an d Literature, " A . W . Schlege l says tha t th e want s t o combin e th e theor y an d th e histor y o f th e ar t h e i s discussing. Fo r hi s theor y o f art , se e mainl y hi s Vorlesungen iiber schone Literatur und Kunst, I , Die Kunstlehre. Reference s i n parenthese s i n th e tex t ar e t o th e recent editio n (Stuttgart , 1963) . 20. I n th e first chapte r o f hi s History of Ancient Art, Winckelman n admit s tha t ar t probably bega n "wit h a sor t o f sculpture. " Bu t h e arrange s th e shapin g o f different material s i n a hierarchi c a s wel l a s chronologica l order . Thu s shapin g begins wit h clay , progresse s t o workin g i n wood , the n t o workin g i n ivory , an d ends u p b y carvin g i n ston e (se e Winckelmann' s Geschichte der Kunst des Ahertums [Vienna, 1934] , pp . 25 , 30) . Onl y carvin g i n ston e i s considere d full-fledge d sculpture. 21. Vasar i severa l time s articulate s hi s well-know n constructio n o f history , as , fo r example, i n th e introductio n t o th e Vite (see Giorgi o Vasari , Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans . A . B . Hind s [Londo n an d Ne w York , 1980] , I , p . 5) . 22. I n E . H . Gombrich , Tributes (Oxford, 1981) . Gombrich' s criticis m o f Hege l i s best summe d u p i n th e lecture s entitle d "I n search o f cultural history, " reprinte d in E . H . Gombrich , Ideas and Idols: Essays on Values in History and in Art (Oxford , 1979), pp . 24-59 . Se e particularl y pp . 2 8 ff . 23. I shal l quot e th e Germa n tex t fro m th e editio n Vorlesungen iiber die Aesthetik, (Berlin, 1835-1838) , I—III , hencefort h t o b e cite d a s Aesthetik; th e Englis h translation b y T . M . Kno x i s quote d fro m Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts (Oxford, 1975), hereafte r abbreviate d a s Fine Art. 24. Aesthetik, I, pp. 4 , 34 ; Fine Art, pp . 1 , 25 . 25. Aesthetik, I, p. 225 ; Fine Art, p . 175 . 26. Aesthetik, I, p. 11 ; Fine Art, p . 7 .

2I9

Modern Theories of Art 27. Aesthetik, I, p . 225 ; Fine Art, p . 175 . 28. Aesthetik, I, p . 12 ; Fine Art, p . 8 . 29. Aesthetik, I, p . 393 ; Fine Art, p . 304 . 30. I n Theories of Art, pp . 36 0 ti. 31. See , for instance , H . R . Jauss , Literaturgeschichte als Provokation (Frankfur t a m Main , 1979), pp . 6 7 ff . 32. Titled , i n German , Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. 33. Creuzer' s Symholik und Mjthologie der alten Volker (1810-1812 ) deal s mainl y wit h Greek mythology , bu t th e ver y titl e o f th e larg e wor k indicate s hi s awarenes s o f additional nation s an d thei r mythologies . Fo r Creuzer , se e below , pp . 233-238 . 34. Fo r a n Englis h translatio n o f SchlegeF s "O n th e Languag e an d Wisdo m o f th e Indians," se e The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Frederick von Schlegel, trans . E. J. Millingto n (London , 1860) , pp . 425-495 . 35. Aesthetik, I , p . 392 ; Fine Art, pp . 303-304 . 36. Aesthetik, I , p . 436 ; Fine Art, p . 338 . A n importan t sourc e fo r Hegel' s studie s o f Indian cultur e an d ar t wa s th e researc h o f Wilhel m vo n Humboldt , bu t h e use d also othe r works . 37. Aesthetik, I, p. 456 ; Fine Art, p . 354 . 38. Aesthetik, I , p . 45 2 ff ; Fine Art, p . 351 . 39. Aesthetik, I, p . 453 ; Fine Art, p . 351 . 40. Aesthetik, I, p. 463 ; Fine Art, p . 360 . 41. Aesthetik, I , p . 461 ; Fine Art, p . 358 . Hegel , obviousl y quotin g fro m memory , ascribes th e stor y o f th e soundin g coloss i t o Herodotus , but , a s th e Englis h translator notes , hi s sourc e wa s probabl y Tacitus , Annals, II, 61. 42. Aesthetik, I , p . 464 ; Fine Art, pp . 360-361 . 43. Aesthetik, II, p. 3 ; Fine Art, p . 427 . 44. Aesthetik, II, p . 21 ; Fine Art, p . 441 . 45. Aesthetik, II, p. 62 ; Fine Art, p . 473 . 46. Virgin : Aesthetik, III , pp . 1 3 f; Fine Art, pp . 80 0 ff . Dutc h genr e painting ; Aesthetik, III, pp . 12 0 ff ; Fine Art, p . 886 . 47. Thi s ha s bee n suggeste d b y Pete r Szond i i n Poetik und Geschichtsphilosophie (Frank furt a . M. , 1974) , p . 424 . 48. Aesthetik, II , pp . 12 1 ff ; Fine Art, pp . 517-518 . 49. Hege l emphasize s thi s mainl y i n hi s introductio n t o th e discussio n o f th e romantic ar t form . Se e particularl y Aesthetik, II, pp. 12 1 ff ; Fine Art, pp . 52 4 ff 50. Aesthetik, II , p. 133 ; Fine Art, p . 527 . 51. Aesthetik, II , p . 144 ; Fine Art, p . 532 . 52. Aesthetik, II , p . 145 ; Fine Art, p . 536 . 53. Aesthetik, II , p . 147 ; Fine Art, p . 538 . 54. Aesthetik, II , 25 4 ff ; Fine Art, pp . 615-620 . 55. Aesthetik, II , p . 268 ; Fine Art, p . 632 . 56. Thi s ide a seem s s o importan t t o Hege l tha t h e stresse s it s originality . "Thi s i s a point o f suprem e importanc e whic h I hav e no t foun d emphasize d anywhere . . . . " Se e Aesthetik, II , p . 268 ; Fine Art, p . 632 .

22o

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts 57. Herder , Plastik (se e above , not e 14) , p . 241 . 58. Aesthetik, II , p . 354 ; Fine Art, p . 702 . 59. Aesthetik, II , pp . 35 5 f. ; Fine Art, p . 703 . 60. Aesthetik, II , p. 359 ; Fine Art, p . 705 . 61. Aesthetik, II , p . 381 ; Fine Art, p . 723 . 62. Aesthetik, II, p . 386 ; Fine Art, p . 727 . 63. Aesthetik, II , p. 387 ; Fine Art, p . 728 . 64. Aesthetik, II , pp . 39 2 ff. ; Fine Art, p . 732 . 65. Aesthetik, II , pp . 39 3 ff. ; Fine Art, p . 733 . 66. Aesthetik, III , p . 7 ; Fine y4«, p . 795 . 67. Aesthetik, III , p . 15 ; Fine Art, p . 802 . 68. Aesthetik, II , p . 259 ; Fine Art, p . 626 . 69. Aesthetik, III , pp . 8 9 ff. ; Fine Art, p . 860 . 70. Aesthetik, III , pp . 1 2 ff. , 1 7 ff., 20 ; Fine Art, pp . 799 , 803 , 805 . 71. Aesthetik, III , p. 20 ; Fine Art, p . 805 . 72. Aesthetik, III , p . 43 ; Fine Art, p . 824 . 73. Th e literatur e o n synaesthesi a i s larg e bu t unwieldy . Cf . th e usefu l remark s i n Charles Osgood , Georg e Suci , an d Perc y Tannebaum , The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, 111. , Chicago, an d London , 1967) , pp . 20-24 . A thoroug h discussio n o f synaesthesia fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f ar t theor y i s stil l missing . Interestin g observations o n th e functio n o f synaesthesi a i n symbolis m ma y b e foun d i n Edwyn Bevan , Symbolism and Belief (Boston, 1957) . 74. Th e literatur e o n th e subjec t i s no t easil y comprehende d i n it s mai n lines . Fo r "harmony o f th e spheres/ ' se e Le o Spitzer , Classical and Christian Ideas of World Harmony (Baltimore, 1963) . Fo r applicatio n o f synaesthesi a t o th e arts , se e Alber t Wellek, "Renaissance - un d Barock-Synaesthesie : Geschicht e de s Doppelempfin dens i m 16 . un d 17 . Jahrhundert," Deutsche Vierteljahrsschriftfur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 9 (193 1 ):534—584 (wit h furthe r literature) . 75. Fo r Poussin' s letter , se e Theories of Art, p . 329 . 76. I use th e reprin t (Paris , 1969) . Pag e reference s wil l b e give n i n th e text . Becaus e in thi s wor k th e paragraph s ar e numbered , I shal l als o giv e th e numbe r o f th e paragraph referre d to . Th e first figure i n parenthese s wil l represen t th e pag e number, th e second , afte r th e semicolon , th e numbe r o f th e paragraph . 77. Se e above , pp . 15 8 ff . 78. Leonardo da Vinci: Treatise on Painting, translate d b y Phili p McMaho n (Princeton , 1956), pp . 7 , 1 4 ((., # # 13 , 2 6 - 2 8 . 79. Sometime s Chevreu l speak s abou t th e harmon y o f "beautifu l colors " an d "beau tiful sounds " (535;974) . I t i s howeve r obvious , I believe , tha t her e to o h e ha s i n mind th e arrangement of color s an d sounds . Th e harmon y an d beaut y reside s i n the arrangement . 80. Fo r Castel , se e Wilto n Mason , "Fathe r Caste l an d Hi s Colo r Clavecin, "Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 17 (1958) ; 103-116 . Fo r moder n attempt s i n th e sam e direction, se e Edwar d Lockspeiser , Music and Painting: A Study in Comparative Ideas from Turner to Schoenberg (Ne w York , 1973) , esp . pp . 12 1 ff .

221

Modern Theories of Art 81. Se e m y Light and Color in Italian Renaissance Theory of Art (Ne w York , 1978) , esp .

pp. 16 0 ff.

82. Se e below , pp . 34 8 ff . 83. Se e Georg e P . Mras , Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art (Princeton , 1966) , p . 37 . 84. See , fo r instance , M . H . Abrams , The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (London, 1971) , p . 51 . 85. I a m usin g th e Englis h translatio n b y Walte r Pach , i n The Journal of Eugene Delacroix (Ne w York , 1972) , pp . 194-195 . 86. The Journal of Delacroix, p . 521 . 87. Aloi s Riegl , Spatromische Kunstindustrie (Vienna , 1927) , pp . 3 2 ff . I abstai n fro m going int o a n analysi s o f th e larg e literatur e (no t alway s successfull y dealin g wit h a ver y comple x problem ) tha t trie s t o elucidat e Riegl' s concepts . Her e I shoul d only lik e t o poin t ou t when , a t wha t stag e o f researc h an d intellectua l develop ment, th e proble m appeared . 88. Include d i n Bernar d Berenson' s Italian Painters of the Renaissance (New York , 1957), p . 63 . 89. The Journal of Eugene Delacroix, p . 538 : entry o f January 13 , 1857 . 90. Ibid. , p . 537 . 91. Se e below , pp . 36 2 ff . 92. Se e Ren e Wellek , A History of Modern Criticism, IV, The Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1983) , p . 444 . 93. Thes e tw o stanza s wer e quote d b y thei r autho r i n a n articl e o n Richar d Wagner' s opera Tannhauser, published i n Marc h 1861 . An Englis h translatio n ca n b e foun d in Charle s Baudelaire , The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, trans . Jonatha n Mayne (Ne w York , 1964) , pp . I l l ff. Th e quotatio n i s on p . 116 . 94. Charle s Baudelaire , Art in Paris 1845-1862, trans . Jonatha n Mayn e (Oxford , 1965), p . 51 . 95. Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life, p. 117 . 96. Th e phras e appear s i n a length y stud y o f Theophil e Gautie r tha t i s no t include d in an y Englis h translatio n o f Baudelaire' s critica l writings . Se e Charle s Baudelaire , Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, ed. H . Lemaitr e (Paris , 1962) , pp . 65 9 ff. (the passag e quote d bein g o n p . 676) . 97. Se e Lockspeiser , Music and Painting, p. 73 . 98. Fo r al l thes e quotations , se e Wellek , A History of Modern Criticism, IV , p . 445 . 99. The Painter of Modern Life, pp. 11 3 ff . Th e Frenc h tex t i s i n Curiosites esthetiques. L'art romantique, p . 694 . 100. Art in Paris, pp . 4 9 - 5 0 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 108 . 101. Se e below , pp . 36 3 ff , 37 5 ff. 102. Se e not e 93 . 103. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 114 ; Curiosites esthetiques. L'art romantique, p . 694 . 104. Se e above , pp . 18 7 ff , 19 3 ff . 105. Fo r Viollet-le-Duc , se e below , pp . 38 0 ff . 106. Se e H . W . Janson , 19th Century Sculpture (New York , 1985) , pp . 126-127 .

222

Unity and Diversity of the Visual Arts 107. Se e Art in Paris 1845-1862, pp . 2 9 ff. , I l l ff. , 20 3 ff. ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, pp . 7 8 ff. , 18 7 ff, 38 1 ff . 108. Art in Paris 1845—1862, p . I l l ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 187 . 109. Art in Paris 1845-1862, p . 204 ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 383 . 110. Art in Paris 1845—1862, p . I l l ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 188 . 111. Th e lette r i s frequentl y published . I quot e fro m th e Englis h translatio n o f i t i n Elizabeth Holt , A Documentary History of Art (Garden City , 1958) , II , p. 35 . 112. Art in Paris 1845—1862, p . I l l ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 188 . 113. Art in Paris 1845—1862, p . 205 ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 384 . 114. Art in Paris 1845—1862, p . I l l ; Curiosites esthetiques. Van romantique, p . 189 . 115. Fo r th e influenc e o f Germa n Romanti c though t o n Frenc h letters , se e Alber t Beguin, L'ame romantique et le reve: Essai sur le romantisme allemand et la poesie jranqaise (Paris, 1939) . Th e fe w page s o n Baudelair e (pp . 376-381 ) d o no t touc h o n ou r subject.

223

4 The Symbo l

u

Iconology" ha s becom e a househol d wor d i n moder n critica l language . "Symbol" an d "symbolism, " th e term s mos t ofte n use d t o indicat e th e relationship o f th e visibl e t o somethin g tha t i n itsel f i s no t seen , hav e been s o frequentl y an d s o carelessl y employe d tha t the y hav e almos t ceased t o hav e an y meaning . I shal l no t her e attemp t t o defin e thes e heavily charge d notions ; ye t 1 mus t explai n i n a fe w word s why , t o m y mind, th e studen t o f eighteenth - an d nineteenth-centur y reflection s o n art shoul d devot e carefu l attentio n t o wha t migh t b e called th e traditio n of symboli c readin g o f work s o f art . The first reaso n fo r devotin g a chapte r t o symbolis m i n thi s boo k i s simple enough . Betwee n th e earl y eighteent h an d th e lat e twentiet h century, symbolis m playe d a centra l par t i n aestheti c reflections , an d this seem s t o b e particularl y tru e wit h regar d t o paintin g an d sculpture . When i n ou r da y on e speak s o f th e predecessor s o f moder n iconology , one usuall y think s o f Renaissanc e mythograph y an d emblematic s (suc h as Andrea Alciatf s work ) and o f Baroque manual s o f the personification s of abstrac t notion s (suc h a s Cesar e Ripa' s lconologia). There i s littl e doubt tha t thes e Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e tradition s di d indee d pav e the wa y fo r a moder n contemplatio n o f pictoria l symbolism . Ye t th e reader followin g thi s presentatio n ma y ge t th e impressio n tha t th e notion o f iconolog y s o popula r i n ou r centur y i s a direct , unmediate d 224

The Symbol continuation o f tha t earl y humanisti c legacy , i n othe r words , tha t modern scholar s too k u p precisel y wer e sixteenth - an d seventeenth century author s lef t off . Suc h a n impression , however , i s no t onl y incorrect; i t als o deprive s iconologica l though t o f significant an d pro ductive layer s i n it s history . Th e eighteent h an d nineteent h centurie s possessed a ric h an d continuou s traditio n o f th e symboli c readin g o f images. Ther e wa s als o a great dea l o f questioning an d sou l searchin g a s to ho w on e coul d b e sur e tha t thes e reading s wer e correc t o r whethe r they wer e th e mer e projection s o f a moder n spectator . Man y o f th e connotations tha t s o ampl y enric h th e notio n o f "image " i n moder n thought actuall y originate d i n th e reflection s o f Enlightenmen t philoso phers, Romanti c poets , an d scholar s o f anthropolog y an d religio n i n th e course o f th e nineteent h century . The thinkin g o f eighteenth - an d nineteenth-centur y student s an d artists abou t th e symboli c dimensio n o f work s o f ar t i s important fo r u s not onl y becaus e i t happen s t o b e par t o f th e stor y w e ar e telling . In fact, the y mad e a lastin g contribution , placin g th e "image " i n a ne w light. Le t u s fo r th e momen t no t worr y abou t th e scop e o f tha t notion . Later w e shal l com e bac k t o th e questio n o f whethe r b y "image " nineteenth-century author s understoo d onl y painting s an d statues , o r whether the y als o include d wha t i s perceive d b y th e mind' s eye . Whatever "image " may mean , b y considering i t a s a symbol w e discove r that i t ha s a powe r tha t goe s fa r beyon d wha t i s instantl y perceive d i n our experience . Th e symboli c imag e show s level s o f realit y tha t nor mally canno t b e seen . Th e wor k o f ar t become s a testimon y t o a n absent—or supernatural—being . Earlie r age s trie d t o com e t o term s with thi s propert y o f image s b y tellin g storie s o f miracles performe d b y icons. I n th e eighteent h an d nineteent h centuries , som e secula r notion s replace th e miracl e stories . Th e paintin g o r th e statu e "show " th e artist's personality , a s if he wer e present ; the y ar e also believed t o revea l the wishe s o r memorie s o f a collectiv e subconsciousness . W e nee d no t discuss thes e concept s themselves . Wha t I shoul d lik e t o poin t ou t i s that t o clai m tha t th e wor k o f ar t ca n perfor m thes e function s i s t o endow i t wit h a particula r power . Th e belie f i n suc h a power , hidde n in th e imag e itself , is a lastin g contributio n o f aestheti c reflectio n i n th e centuries betwee n th e Baroqu e an d ou r ow n time . I t i s anothe r reaso n 22£

Modern Theories of Art for studyin g carefull y wha t thes e centurie s ha d t o sa y abou t th e sym bolic functio n an d migh t o f art .

I. W I N C K E L M A N N In mor e tha n on e respect , Winckelman n mark s th e beginnin g o f th e modern stud y o f art. 1 Thi s i s als o tru e fo r a ne w consideratio n o f subject matte r an d th e symboli c dimensio n o f work s o f art . Wha t rol e do symbolis m an d mytholog y pla y i n th e ar t o f a period ? Wha t wa s their significanc e fo r th e ar t o f hi s ow n time ? Winckelman n wa s concerned wit h thes e questions , an d h e returne d t o the m a t differen t stages o f hi s intellectua l life . Alread y i n hi s first treatise , Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works of Art (17^6) , h e deplore s th e fac t tha t th e contemporary artis t ha s n o usefu l compendiu m o n symbolis m a t hi s disposal.2 I n on e o f hi s las t works , Versuch einer Allegorie, besondersfur die Kunst (1766), he trie d t o provid e th e artis t wit h just suc h a work. 3 I n it s aim, then , th e latte r wor k completel y adhere s t o th e lin e o f traditiona l art theory ; ostensibly , i t i s mean t a s a hel p fo r th e practicin g artist , a s were simila r manual s i n th e Renaissance . I n it s underlyin g approach , however, i t lay s th e foundation s fo r a modern vie w o f symbolis m i n th e figurative arts . I n it s achievement s an d failure s i t reflect s th e strength s and weaknesse s o f Winckelmann' s aesthetics . Subject matte r play s a majo r rol e i n Winckelmann' s view s o n art . I t is a criterion o f valu e judgment; renderin g th e subjec t appropriatel y an d manifesting i t clearl y i s th e artist' s suprem e goal . Winckelman n reject s Dutch paintin g becaus e i t ha s a "merel y sensor y air. " H e criticize s rococo picture s becaus e the y ar e "painting s tha t mea n nothing." 4 Hi s aesthetics, i t ha s frequentl y bee n said , i s a n "aesthetic s o f content " (Gehaltsasthetik). I t is against thi s attitude t o subject matte r tha t w e shoul d see hi s attempt s t o formulat e a doctrine o f allegory . The sign s o f allegory , Winckelman n believes , ar e t o b e foun d fa r beyond th e confine s o f literar y subjec t matte r proper . Goo d tast e ha s recently deteriorated , w e mus t infe r fro m wha t h e says , becaus e o f th e fashion o f paintin g object s devoi d o f meaning . Tha t tast e ca n b e re stored, however , b y a thoroug h an d devote d stud y o f allegory . Certai n 226

The Symbol noble kind s o f poetr y find a paralle l i n visua l allegories . Th e subjec t o f an ode , Winckelman n alread y declare d i n 1756 , ca n b e represente d visually onl y i n a n allegorica l painting. 5 (I n thi s contex t i t i s worthwhil e remembering, a s Beng t Algo t Sorense n ha s show n i n a fine study , tha t eighteenth-century, mainl y English , view s linke d th e od e wit h th e Sublime.)6 In a broade r sense , Winckelman n continuall y stresse d th e importance o f reaso n an d rationa l understandin g fo r art . "Th e brus h the artis t use s shoul d b e dippe d i n reason, " h e sai d i n hi s first treatise . "The artis t shoul d leav e t o though t mor e tha n wha t h e show s th e eye. " What i s a n "allegory " i n Winckelmann' s thought ? H e begin s th e Versuch wit h a forma l definitio n o f th e concept . I t i s thu s particularl y surprising tha t ou r simpl e inquir y doe s no t receiv e a simpl e answer . I n fact, Winckelman n gives , o r a t leas t implies , tw o differen t answer s t o the questio n wha t i s "allegory " or , mor e generally , th e symboli c mode . The mai n tendenc y o f on e answe r i s towar d th e past , o f th e othe r t o the future . An d i t i s perhap s characteristi c o f Winckelmann' s singula r position i n th e histor y o f hi s subjec t tha t h e doe s no t see m t o perceiv e the conflic t betwee n hi s tw o views . In th e ver y first sentence s o f th e work , Winckelman n describe s allegory i n linguisti c terms . Taken i n it s broades t sense , he says , allegory is a "suggestion o f concept s b y images , and thu s i t i s a general language , primarily o f th e artists . . . . " Th e ter m "allegory, " h e remind s hi s readers, originall y mean t "t o sa y somethin g tha t i s differen t fro m wha t one want s t o indicate , tha t is , t o ai m somewher e els e fro m wher e th e expression seem s t o go." Late r i n th e sam e openin g paragraph , w e lear n that th e usag e o f th e ter m wa s broadened , an d no w "w e understan d b y allegory everythin g tha t i s indicate d b y picture s an d signs. " Winckel mann doe s no t tel l u s ho w h e think s thes e sign s wor k o r wha t make s them intelligibl e t o th e spectator . A carefu l reade r o f hi s tex t canno t help feeling , however , tha t h e understand s allegor y a s essentiall y base d on convention . T o continu e hi s metaphor , cultura l inheritanc e taugh t us th e language , an d therefor e w e ar e abl e t o rea d an d understan d th e message. This conclusio n i s supporte d b y th e mode s t o whic h Winckelman n refers, th e venerabl e traditio n h e acknowledge s a s his ancestor . H e call s pictorial symbolis m a "science, " a s di d th e grea t symbolist s o f th e 227

Modern Theories of Art Renaissance, an d fro m th e pas t o f tha t scienc e h e single s ou t "thre e great heroes. " The y ar e Pieri o Valeriano , th e mid-sixteent h centur y humanist, Cesar e Ripa , o f who m w e hav e spoke n i n a n earlie r stag e o f this study , an d th e Frenchma n Jean-Baptist e Boudard. 7 Thes e scholar s understood symbolis m a s a cultural , tha t is , a man-made , tradition , based o n deliberate , commonl y know n an d accepte d conventions . The y would al l hav e agree d tha t yo u canno t rea d th e symbol s i f yo u don' t know th e convention s o n whic h the y ar e based . Thi s i s als o ho w Winckelmann understoo d thei r legacy . Pieri o Valerian o calle d hi s grea t work o n symbolis m Hieroglyphica becaus e h e wishe d t o explai n th e symbolic sign s o f th e Egyptians . Th e Egyptians , a s th e Greek s said , invented allegory , an d amon g the m thi s for m o f expressio n wa s mor e common tha n i n othe r nations . Th e Egyptian s calle d allegor y thei r "sacred language. " Agai n i t follow s fro m th e overal l context , thoug h Winckelmann doe s no t sa y s o expressly , tha t thi s "invented " languag e (or script ) i s a convention, deliberatel y se t up . Frequentl y Winckelman n is critica l o f hi s predecessors . Cesar e Ripa' s symbolism , fo r instance , relies to o muc h o n literar y sources , an d doe s no t dra w sufficientl y o n images. Bu t thi s criticis m doe s no t cal l int o questio n th e basi c assump tion underlyin g al l interpretations , tha t is , tha t symbolis m i s a con vention. In addition , however , Winckelman n hold s ye t anothe r vie w o f sym bolism, and , i n som e respect s a t least , tha t othe r vie w i s th e ver y opposite o f th e first. "Natur e herself, " w e ar e told , "wa s th e teache r o f allegory, an d thi s languag e i s mor e appropriat e t o he r tha n th e sign s later invente d b y ou r thought " (p . 441). H e als o say s tha t natur e speak s in allegories . Ho w ar e w e t o understan d thi s statement ? Th e answe r i s indicated i n anothe r definitio n o f allegory . "Ever y allegorica l sig n o r picture shoul d contai n i n itsel f th e distinctiv e qualitie s o f th e thin g signified." Th e simple r thi s relationshi p (o f containin g o r displaying ) is , the bette r (p . 441) . Wha t thi s latte r statement , i f though t throug h consistently, amount s t o i s a complet e reversa l o f th e understandin g o f symbolism a s a convention , an d o f th e definitio n o f allegor y formerl y given. Tha t forme r definition , a s w e remember , wa s base d o n a n assumption tha t th e objec t tha t serve s a s a symbo l an d th e ide a tha t i s 228

The Symbol symbolized ar e altogethe r alie n t o eac h other . This , a s w e hav e jus t seen, i s what th e wor d "allegory " means . The ne w concep t o f allegor y als o implie s a ne w wa y o f readin g symbols. W e hav e see n tha t yo u canno t rea d a symbo l i f yo u don' t know th e cod e i n whic h i t i s written . Acquirin g th e cod e i s a matter o f cultural achievement . Th e significanc e o f th e signs , o r o f th e principle s governing tha t significance , i s transmitte d fro m on e generatio n t o an other, fro m on e perio d t o another . I t naturall y follow s tha t som e peopl e understand th e signs , other s d o not . Th e Renaissanc e belie f tha t onl y the educate d an d th e initiate d ar e abl e t o rea d th e "sacre d sign " i s stil l valid. Th e othe r concep t o f allegor y reverse s thi s belief . "Allegor y should therefor e b e intelligibl e b y itself, " Winckelman n says , "an d should no t b e i n nee d o f a n inscription. " How ca n w e accoun t fo r suc h a blatan t contradiction ? On e ma y suspect, a s ha s indee d bee n suggested , a certai n carelessness , o r eve n clumsiness, i n th e us e o f terminology . Winckelman n wa s no t particu larly concerne d wit h consistenc y i n hi s us e o f terms . Thoug h thi s ma y be true , th e contradictio n w e hav e jus t see n i s to o significant t o b e explained awa y a s a mistake . I t i s therefor e importan t t o not e tha t wherever Winckelman n speak s o f a n allegor y tha t ha s a certain identit y with wha t i t refer s t o — i n hi s language , th e symbo l tha t contain s i n itself th e qualit y o f wha t i t symbolizes—h e ha s image s i n mind . I n other words , i n thes e case s h e i s thinkin g o f allegorie s tha t addres s th e audience b y mean s o f visua l experience . Th e imag e i s no t detache d from it s contents , i t carrie s it s meanin g withi n itself , an d doe s no t sen d the spectato r beyon d wha t h e visuall y experiences. Visua l allegories , like nature itself , ar e "tru e image s o f things " (p. 441). Winckelmann write s fo r artists . Shoul d w e forge t thi s basi c fact , w e would quickl y recal l i t b y readin g th e Versuch einer Allegoric With al l hi s antiquarian eruditio n an d wit h al l th e subtl e memorie s fro m ancien t literatures an d art s that , whethe r explicitl y state d o r vaguel y allude d to , give suc h a ric h textur e t o hi s text , h e neve r forget s tha t h e i s addressing hi s wor k t o th e creativ e artist . Tha t th e artis t wh o shape s new work s alway s draw s upo n inherite d tradition—whateve r th e pe riod i n whic h h e lives—i s fo r Winckelman n a matte r o f course . Bu t 229

Modern Theories of Art the learne d Roma n antiquaria n als o know s tha t fo r th e creativ e artis t the tas k o f shaping new symbolic vision s i s never done . There wil l alway s be th e nee d t o creat e ne w symbols . I t i s therefore mandator y t o inquir e how ne w allegorie s ca n b e developed . I n writin g th e Versuch, Winckel mann ha s thi s questio n uppermos t i n hi s mind . T o b e sure , i n th e course o f hi s wor k o n allegor y h e summarize s a great dea l o f traditiona l wisdom. H e know s tha t th e Renaissanc e traditio n cas t inherite d image s into definit e didactica l patterns . Cesar e Ripa' s Iconologia, w e rea d earl y in Winckelmann' s book , attaine d suc h wid e fam e tha t i t becam e "th e artist's Bible " (p . 476) . Ripa , however , doe s no t tel l u s ho w ne w allegories shoul d b e fashioned . Her e ou r autho r trie s t o fill th e gap . H e outlines thre e principle s tha t shoul d gover n an y ne w creatio n i n th e symoblic mode . Allegories , h e says , should b e simple , clear , an d lovely . Simplicity i s no t a ne w concept . W e hav e alread y encountere d i t i n Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art, an d there , a s w e remember , h e considered simplicit y a s th e suprem e valu e an d centra l achievemen t o f the classica l age. 8 Now , on e ca n perhap s understan d wha t simplicit y i s as a qualit y o f style , i n th e renderin g o f figures o r landscapes . Bu t wha t precisely constitute s th e simplicit y o f a n allegory ? I t consists , Winckel mann says , in "designin g a picture s o as t o expres s th e thin g referre d t o with a s fe w sign s a s possible " (p . 484) . Suc h simplicit y i s "lik e gol d without furthe r addition. " Simplicity , then , i s to expres s muc h b y little . The opposit e i s a sign o f confuse d an d immatur e conception . Clarity, th e secon d requirement , follow s fro m simplicity , a s Winck elmann believe s (p . 48^) . Considere d i n th e contex t o f symboli c im agery, clarit y i s a comple x notion , no t pertainin g onl y t o th e makin g o f the wor k o f art , an d thu s t o th e artist , bu t als o t o understandin g it , an d thus t o th e spectato r o r audience . I n th e brie f passag e Winckelman n devotes t o clarit y i n Versuch einer Allegorie, h e indee d switche s fro m th e artist t o th e spectator . Wha t i s i t tha t ensure s th e clarit y o f a n allegorical image ? I n a n ag e so intensivel y concerne d wit h hermeneutics , one ca n no w hardl y refrai n fro m formulatin g th e proble m mor e point edly: i s a n artisti c symbo l (o r allegory ) graspe d intuitively , o r doe s th e spectator hav e t o lear n th e cod e i n orde r t o clearl y understan d wha t h e perceives i n th e wor k o f ar t h e i s lookin g at ? The question , implie d b y Winckelmann's wording , i s n o explicitl y asked . S o fa r a s ca n b e deter 230

The Symbol mined fro m th e text , th e autho r doe s no t se e th e dilemm a clearly , o r else h e waver s i n hi s answer , h e doe s no t tak e a definit e stand . Th e clarity o f symboli c images , Winckelman n says , "shoul d b e take n rela tively." On e canno t as k tha t a pictur e "b e full y intelligibl e a t a first glance t o a completel y uneducate d person, " h e say s a s somethin g self understood. Th e twofol d qualificatio n ("full y intelligible " an d "com pletely uneducated" ) show s tha t Winckelman n wa s no t o f on e min d o n the central questio n o f interpretation, a question h e had no t full y spelle d out. Nevertheless , i t seem s tha t h e her e tend s t o a readin g o f pictoria l symbols primaril y a s cultura l signs . I f yo u ar e no t familia r wit h th e cultural code—i f yo u ar e "uneducated, " tha t is—yo u canno t properl y grasp wha t yo u ar e seein g i n th e allegorica l paintin g o r statue . In th e very nex t sentence , however , Winckelman n make s a clai m tha t seem s to contradic t wha t h e ha s just said . Th e allegorica l pictur e wil l b e clear , we ar e told , "i f i t bear s a clos e relatio n t o wha t i s t o b e represented. " The exampl e h e adduce s ma y astonis h th e moder n student . Th e whit e radishes i n Guid o Ren f s paintin g o f Mar y Magdale n "signif y he r stric t life" (p . 48^) . Everybody , Winckelman n obviousl y assumes , i s familia r with th e hars h tast e o f whit e radishe s an d therefor e intuitivel y applie s this knowledg e a s a reminde r o f Mar y Magdalen' s "stric t life. " I t is , Panofsky woul d say , th e objec t know n fro m "practica l life " tha t seem s intuitively intelligible . The thir d requirement , finally, i s lovelines s (pp . 48 ^ ff) . Thi s de mand, o f course , i s n o specifi c t o a n allegorica l o r symboli c mode ; w e ask loveliness o f any wor k o f art, whethe r o r no t symbolic . I n a symboli c work o f art , however , th e ai m o f loveliness i s to mak e teachin g pleasur able. Thi s i s particularl y true , Winckelman n insists , fo r th e visua l symbol. Literatur e ca n affor d description s o f horro r an d uglines s tha t painting cannot .

II. TH E SCIENC E O F MYTHOLOG Y The historia n tryin g t o follo w th e increasin g concer n wit h symbolis m i n modern artisti c reflectio n canno t disregar d certai n tradition s o f schol arship that , i n a narro w sense , ha d littl e t o d o wit h th e theor y o f art . 231

Modern Theories of Art First an d foremos t amon g thes e i s th e stud y o f mythology , mainl y Greek bu t sometime s als o of othe r cultures , a s i t blossome d particularl y during th e perio d o f Romanticism . Th e "scienc e o f mythology,'* emerg ing i n th e las t tw o decade s o f th e eighteent h an d th e first decade s o f the nineteent h century , articulate d concept s o f visua l symbolis m an d approaches t o paintin g an d sculptur e tha t di d no t find comparabl e expression i n an y othe r field o f stud y o r reflection . Som e o f thes e concepts an d approaches , w e shal l shortl y see , becam e majo r factor s i n the interpretatio n o f art . I n th e presen t section , I shal l first briefl y outline som e o f th e majo r contribution s th e scienc e o f mytholog y mad e to th e theor y o f art ; b y wa y o f example , I shal l the n analyz e th e influence o f som e o f th e Romanti c student s o f mytholog y o n ar t doctrines. What i s a n artisti c symbol , an d ho w doe s i t work ? Th e questio n i n itself wa s no t new ; i t ha d agitate d th e mind s o f artist s an d scholar s since th e Renaissance . Ye t i n thos e centurie s th e questio n wa s perceive d in a somewha t vague , no t full y articulat e way . Som e o f th e analytica l distinctions mad e b y Romanti c scholarship , particularl y thos e settin g the symbo l i n ar t apar t fro m symbolis m i n othe r fields o f though t an d science, were new . I t wa s thes e distinction s tha t late r becam e importan t components o f a modern approac h t o th e readin g o f a n artisti c image . These distinctions , a s wel l a s th e moder n understandin g o f th e wor k of ar t a s a symboli c expression , w e shoul d remember , wer e no t pro pounded i n th e philosophica l schools ; rathe r the y emerge d fro m th e labors tha t som e scholar s investe d i n th e stud y an d interpretatio n o f mythographical text s an d monuments . I n ou r century , thes e earl y scholars hav e sometime s bee n criticize d fo r thei r logica l inconsistenc y and fo r hypothese s that , admittedly , ar e occasionall y "wild. " Howeve r that ma y be , thei r impac t o n though t o n ar t wa s bot h profoun d an d extensive. Th e question s the y aske d electrifie d artists , critics , an d audi ences. I n posin g thes e questions , an d i n pursuin g certai n line s o f thought i n a n attemp t t o answe r them , thes e scholar s becam e th e mouthpiece o f subterranea n trend s tha t wer e t o shap e a n importan t part o f th e moder n world . Another contributio n t o th e theor y o f ar t mad e b y thes e scholar s was th e transmittin g t o moder n cultur e o f a comprehensiv e repertor y 232

The Symbol of distinc t mythologica l image s an d visua l symbols . Thi s educationa l activity, however , wa s a by-produc t rathe r tha n th e majo r goa l o f th e Romantic scholars . Wha t the y sough t wa s th e "truth, " wha t the y achieved wa s th e formin g o f th e imaginatio n o f th e moder n world . A final poin t I shoul d lik e t o stres s i s thei r emphasi s o n wha t wa s collectively believed i n ancien t times . Thi s ma y see m trivia l t o an y present-day student , bu t i n th e earl y nineteent h centur y i t wa s of majo r significance. Th e Romanti c perio d was , a s w e al l know , fascinate d b y the unique , creativ e individual , b y th e "genius. " Th e ar t historia n doe s not hav e t o b e tol d wha t Romanticis m contribute d t o th e psycholog y of th e genius , an d ho w i t revolutionize d th e discover y o f th e individua l artist's imaginatio n an d experienc e i n hi s work . A s oppose d t o th e "religion o f genius, " t o whic h w e shal l com e bac k i n th e nex t chapter , the scholar s o f th e "Wissenschaf t de r Mythologie " emphasize d th e beliefs o f whol e communitie s an d cultures . In s o doin g the y were , i n fact, preparin g a grea t dea l o f th e moder n approac h t o ar t an d it s symbols. i. CREUZE R

Friedrich Creuzer' s Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker, besonders der Griechen (Symbolic s an d Mytholog y o f th e Ancien t Nations , Particularl y the Greeks ) (Leipzi g an d Darmstadt , 1810—1812 ) wa s mor e tha n jus t another learne d book ; i t wa s a histori c event . In it , Geor g Friedric h Creuzer (1771-18^8) , a professo r o f ancien t literatur e a t th e Universit y of Heidelber g an d a frien d o f Hegel's , attempte d t o giv e a scientifi c basis t o th e Neoplatoni c readin g o f Gree k mythology . Thoug h hi s grea t work (i n fou r volumes ) wa s soo n dismisse d b y professiona l scholars , especially philologists , it s impac t wa s far-reachin g an d deepl y felt , an d it playe d a n importan t par t i n th e developmen t o f mythological studies . Enthusiastically greete d b y Schelling , i t stirre d a controvers y tha t af fected severa l scholarl y disciplines , an d le d t o th e rethinkin g o f thei r foundations. Th e struggl e ove r Creuzer' s Symoblik wa s a cause celebre tha t left it s mar k o n th e intellectua l lif e o f th e nineteent h century. 9 Th e rol e of this wor k i n th e articulatio n o f views concernin g pictoria l symbolism , though no t sufficientl y appreciated , i s of significance. 233

Modern Theories of Art The first "book " o f th e Sjmbolik i s devote d t o a discours e o n th e symbol i n general . A t th e cente r o f Creuzer' s view s o n th e symbo l stands th e image . B y "image " h e mean s wha t w e perceiv e wit h ou r "inner eye, " wha t w e se e i n introspection , a s wel l a s th e literar y metaphor; bu t h e als o mean s real , materia l image s o f th e gods , statue s carved i n ston e o r i n wood . Th e visuall y perceive d symbo l i s a focu s o f religious imagery . A carved imag e o f th e god wa s place d i n almos t ever y Greek temple . Readin g th e image , Creuze r believed , wa s amon g th e oldest function s o f the priests . The teacher s o f ancient times , the priests , had a kinshi p wit h th e gods : the y presente d t o th e community , an d interpreted, th e sacre d image s receive d (miraculously ? Creuze r doe s no t say) fro m th e god s themselves , o r els e the y themselve s shape d th e images o f th e visibl e gods (I , pp. i £ ff.). 10 The symbo l image , Creuze r believes , dwell s i n th e zon e o f ambiguit y and conflict . Thi s i s so becaus e th e symbo l i s perceived b y th e soul , an d the sou l itsel f dwell s i n tha t zone . A s th e sou l "hovers " betwee n th e world o f idea s an d th e worl d o f th e senses , w e read , s o everythin g i t desires o r achieve s mus t partak e o f tha t "doubl e nature " (I , p. 67) . Suc h hovering, th e autho r stresses , i s "the fat e o f th e symbol. " The "incongruenc e betwee n essenc e an d form " i s a characteristi c o f the symbo l image . Now , tha t th e symbo l entail s a tension , o r eve n a conflict, betwee n th e visibl e shap e an d th e invisibl e content , betwee n the for m tha t serve s a s a symbol an d th e ide a tha t i s symbolized b y tha t form—this ha d frequentl y bee n sai d i n earlie r periods . Nothin g ne w was adde d t o tha t basi c conceptio n b y Romanti c thought . Wha t i s characteristic o f Creuze r i s hi s endowmen t o f thi s abstrac t cognitio n with a live , immediat e psychi c urgency . Th e attentiv e reade r o f Creuz er's discours e o n th e symbo l ofte n wonder s whethe r th e author' s subject i s a philosophica l notio n o r a n alarmin g experienc e i n fron t o f an expressive , almos t magical , wor k o f art . T o communicat e thi s im mediate experienc e o f th e symbol , Creuze r ha s recours e t o a famou s ancient treatis e b y Demetrios , know n a s On Style. Translatin g rathe r freely, Creuze r say s tha t "anythin g tha t i s onl y portende d i s mor e terrible tha n what , strippe d o f al l veils , i s presente d t o th e eyes . Therefore myster y doctrine s ar e se t fort h i n symbols , a s nigh t an d darkness" (I , pp . 6 8 ff.). 11 234

The Symbol "Darkness" cas t a spel l o n Creuzer ; h e wa s enchante d wit h th e mystery an d image s o f th e night . Thi s als o applie d t o th e historica l an d cultural topic s that , metaphorically , ca n b e describe d a s "dark. " H e ha d in min d particularl y th e myster y religions . In classica l religion , h e wa s fascinated wit h th e trend s know n a s Orphic , Bacchic , Dionysian , and , to a lesse r degree , wit h som e Orienta l cults . Wha t al l thes e religiou s trends hav e in common, h e believed , wa s th e aspiration fo r th e ineffable . The image s the y employed , therefore , sho w th e intrinsi c conflic t o f th e symbol i n general . Th e symbo l "want s t o measur e th e immeasurable , and t o squeez e th e divin e int o th e narro w spac e o f th e huma n forms " (I, p. 73). I n th e final event , thi s i s a tragic enterprise ; our autho r know s that th e attemp t t o utte r th e inexpressibl e i s doome d t o failure . Th e striving t o adequatel y symboliz e th e divin e wil l eventuall y lea d t o th e destruction o f th e symbo l itself . u Here," h e writes , "th e ineffabl e prevails that , seekin g expression, wil l b y the infinit e powe r o f its essenc e ultimately explod e th e terrestria l for m tha t i s to o wea k a vessel. " Exploding th e vesse l i s obviously th e en d o f symbolizing. "Herewit h th e clarity o f lookin g i s itsel f destroyed , an d onl y speechles s wonderin g remains" (I , p. 73). Symbols, nevertheless , exist . Ho w ar e w e t o accoun t fo r them ? Th e symbol i s there, i t ca n b e experienced—thi s i s the essenc e o f Creuzer' s teaching—because w e ar e abl e t o perceiv e i t intuitively , withou t first breaking i t u p int o it s individua l components . I t i s an essentia l propert y of expressio n b y mean s o f image s tha t i t proceed s differentl y fro m analytical separation . I t gives , h e says , " a uniqu e an d undivided " whole . Whereas analytica l reaso n dissect s th e objec t i t wishe s t o presen t int o its componen t parts , assemble s th e individua l characteristics , an d ad duces the m successivel y a s a serie s o f features , th e intuitiv e mod e presents al l a t once . "I n a simple glance,"Creuzer writes , "i n on e strok e the intuitio n i s completed" (I , p. 66). The symbol , ou r autho r claims , i s "th e roo t o f al l expressio n b y images" (I , p . 80) . This h e wishe s t o sho w b y comparin g th e symbol , a s he understand s it , wit h th e othe r majo r products , o r forms , o f "icon ism." 12 H e thu s compare s symbo l wit h allegory . In wha t h e call s "allegory," a n essentia l distinctio n remain s betwee n th e sensor y for m and th e idea ; i n th e "symbol, " the y ar e fused . I n allegory , t o us e hi s 23S

Modern Theories of Art own wording , ther e i s " a referenc e t o a genera l notion , th e symbo l i s the sense-perceived , embodie d ide a itself.' * So close are Creuzer' s word s to th e time-hallowe d term s employe d i n Christologica l doctrin e tha t one feel s certai n ou r autho r wa s awar e o f th e powerfu l historica l an d theological connotation s h e wa s evoking . I n allegory , w e read , ther e i s "substitution" (Stellvertretung), in th e symbo l th e concep t itsel f "de scended int o thi s worl d o f bodies , an d i n th e imag e (Bild) we see th e notion itsel f an d directly " (I , p. 83) . The proble m o f th e symbo l i s not on e o f forma l structur e an d shape ; it i s also , an d perhap s primarily , tha t o f reading . I n othe r words , th e symbol lives , an d act s ou t it s possibilities , i n wha t i t doe s t o th e audience an d i n ho w i t affect s th e spectator . Th e differenc e betwee n the tw o mode s o f symbolizin g i s als o reflecte d i n th e way s peopl e rea d the symboli c image . I n readin g allegory , Creuze r says , ther e i s "mor e freedom," th e impuls e t o play—tha t is , th e urg e t o tr y ou t differen t possibilities o f interpretation—"hover s aroun d th e idea, " befor e w e settle o n a definit e solution . Figurin g ou t wha t a n allegor y mean s i s th e free ac t o f th e interpretin g beholder . Somethin g altogethe r differen t occurs whe n w e loo k a t wha t Creuze r call s th e "symbol. " I n writin g about ho w th e symbo l affect s us , Creuze r abound s i n metaphor s o f dominance an d compulsion . Hi s language show s ho w deepl y h e believe d that ma n i s at th e merc y o f th e symbol . Th e play-driv e ha s disappeared , and no w w e ar e unde r th e symbol' s spell . Ou r sou l i s deepl y stirre d b y the symboli c imag e w e ar e regarding . S o profoun d i s th e impac t o f th e symbol that , i n Creuzer' s words , "th e necessit y o f natur e [here ] prevail s upon us " (I , p . 64) . W e d o no t kno w precisel y ho w th e symboli c imag e dominates ou r sou l an d mind , bu t w e deepl y fee l tha t i t does . Th e image wa s no t produce d i n orde r t o dominat e us , bu t th e powe r o f revelation containe d i n i t make s i t inexorable . "Jus t a s natur e i n he r unchanging law s silentl y reigns , s o rules , silentl y an d involuntarily , a s i t were, a n eterna l trut h i n tha t significan t image. " Creuze r call s thi s compelling powe r o f th e imag e "th e natura l languag e o f th e symbolic " (I, p . 8 S). What wer e Creuzer' s source s fo r hi s doctrin e o f th e visua l symbol? It ha s bee n claime d tha t h e revive d th e Neoplatoni c approac h t o ancien t religion.13 Thi s seem s t o b e particularl y tru e fo r wha t h e say s abou t th e 236

The Symbol symbol tha t i s intuitivel y perceived . H e derive d a grea t dea l fro m th e major tex t o f ancien t Neoplatonism , Plotinus' s work . Alread y compara tively earl y i n hi s life , i n i8o£ , Creuze r ha d translate d lon g passage s from Plotinus. 14 H e mus t hav e bee n particularl y impresse d b y wha t Plotinus say s abou t Egyptia n hieroglyph s a s image s o f thought . A s w e know, Plotinu s explaine d th e hieroglyph s a s th e image s o f ideas . The y show, i n hi s ow n words , "th e absenc e o f discursivenes s i n th e Intellec tual Realm . Fo r eac h manifestatio n o f knowledg e an d wisdo m i s a distinct imag e . . . " (V,8,6). 1S Creuzer fel t th e affinit y o f th e hieroglyp h to th e visua l arts . In th e Symbolik (I, p . 321) , h e treat s hieroglyphs , conceived a s ideographi c images , a s par t o f sculpture . The mythologica l traditio n i n Romanti c scholarship , represente d b y Creuzer (an d i n whic h h e playe d a significant part) , placed ar t o n a hig h metaphysical level . Thes e student s o f ancien t mythologie s extolle d th e image fa r beyon d th e merel y aestheti c objec t o r th e didacti c device ; they trie d t o understan d an d t o revea l th e magi c power s wit h whic h the paintin g an d th e statu e ar e endowed . In thu s viewin g th e image , these scholar s pave d th e wa y fo r wha t wa s t o b e calle d th e "religio n o f art." Th e present-da y historia n wonders , however , ho w th e secur e metaphysical positio n o f th e imag e derive s fro m Creuzer' s doctrine . T o use a n ol d Platoni c term , di d h e indee d "save " art ? In hi s doctrin e o f th e symbol , Creuze r i s a radical . H e expose s th e inherent conflict s an d h e pushe s th e clas h betwee n th e contrastin g tendencies t o a n extrem e point . Ye t w e hav e als o see n tha t h e wa s aware o f th e dange r fo r th e image , an d fo r th e "clarit y o f vision, " tha t the attemp t "t o measur e th e immeasurable " entails . Whe n Creuze r comes t o actua l art , h e look s fo r a "reconciliation," t o us e Hegel' s term , between th e ineffabl e an d th e form , h e trie s t o find a way t o bridg e th e total "incongruence " betwee n spiri t an d matter . In th e final analysis , Creuze r seem s t o believe , th e ver y conditio n necessary fo r th e comin g int o bein g o f a n expressive , symbolizin g wor k of ar t i s th e mitigatio n o f th e conflic t betwee n th e visibl e an d th e invisible, betwee n th e tw o contrastin g feature s o f th e symbol . Fo r th e radical philosophe r o f mytholog y ther e i s n o wa y t o softe n th e clash . The studen t o f ar t see s thi s differently . I f th e symboli c driv e restrict s itself and , a s Creuze r says , "modestl y keep s t o a delicat e middl e lin e 237

Modern Theories of Art between spiri t an d nature, " i t wil l b e abl e t o mak e th e divin e visibl e "to a certai n degree " (gewissermassen) (I , p . 74) . Th e symboli c image — obviously h e ha s th e imag e o f th e divin e i n mind—draws , "wit h irresistible force, " th e spectato r t o itself , ineluctabl y i t "touche s ou r soul," a s doe s th e Worl d Spiri t itself . I n rathe r poeti c languag e mor e suitable t o a mysti c visionar y tha n a sobe r professor , h e say s tha t wha t causes tha t imag e t o ac t i s "th e exuberanc e o f upwellin g ideas. " Bu t here, i n th e image , th e "essence " doe s no t striv e a t "boundles s super abundance"; rather , i t yields t o form , i t permeate s an d animate s it . Thi s yielding, a solvin g o f th e conflic t betwee n th e infinit e an d th e finite, Creuzer conceive s a s a purification . "Fro m th e purificatio n o f th e image-realm (Bildliches), o n th e on e hand , an d fro m th e voluntar y re nunciation o f th e boundless , o n th e other , ther e blossom s fort h th e most beautifu l frui t o f al l symbolism , th e symbo l o f th e god . Tha t symbol o f th e go d marvellousl y combine s th e beaut y o f for m wit h th e highest abundanc e o f essence . Sinc e i t occurre d i n mos t perfec t for m i n Greek sculpture , i t ma y b e calle d th e plastic symbol " (I , pp. 7 4 f.). We shal l no t her e attemp t t o asses s i n detai l whethe r o r no t th e "reconciliation" Creuze r suggest s i s a vali d solution . Th e philosophe r may hav e hi s doubt s a s t o whethe r th e Romanti c "mythologist, " a s Friedrich Creuze r calle d himself , actuall y showe d ho w th e incongruenc e inherent i n th e symbo l ca n b e overcome. Bu t whateve r th e philosophica l weaknesses, th e mythologica l school , an d quit e particularl y Creuzer , became a significan t facto r i n shapin g idea s o n th e image . Thoug h hi s name i s no t know n t o man y artist s an d critics , th e idea s h e introduce d into moder n though t o n th e visua l art s hav e enjoye d a lon g an d powerful life . 2. BACHOFE N

Bachofen's An Essay on Ancient Mortuary Symbolism (Versuch Uber die Grabersymbolik der Alten) appeare d i n 18^9 , almos t fifty year s afte r th e first volume o f Creuzer' s Symbolik. Thi s half-centur y wa s a productiv e tim e for mythologica l research , bu t th e directio n i t too k le d awa y fro m Creuzer's mystica l Neoplatonism . Th e stud y o f th e Gree k god s becam e the concer n o f academi c institutions . Ther e i s n o denyin g that , unde r 238

The Symbol the ne w tutelage , th e scholarshi p improved , th e evidenc e wa s mor e carefully an d cautiousl y weighed , an d th e conclusion s reache d brough t scholarship close r t o "truth. " Ye t i t i s als o tru e that , a s th e flights o f fancy sometime s characteristi c o f Creuze r an d hi s predecessor s wer e restrained b y responsibl e scholarship , th e Gree k god s becam e les s fasci nating t o artists . Mythologica l symbolis m wa s slowl y losin g it s hol d o n the formatio n o f ar t theoretica l concepts . Besides the mai n tren d o f mythological scholarship , however, anothe r tradition o f readin g mythica l symbol s wa s aliv e throughou t th e nine teenth century . A s fa r a s stric t scholarl y consistenc y i s concerned , tha t other traditio n ma y hav e bee n les s responsibl e tha n th e learnin g o f th e professors, an d th e conclusion s i t dre w fro m th e evidenc e coul d no t always b e full y supported . Bu t i t wa s charge d wit h imaginatio n an d retained somethin g o f th e vivi d belie f tha t hidde n mysterie s wer e revealed, o r i n som e way s a t leas t indicated , i n th e appearance s o f th e ancient god s an d i n th e classica l monument s portrayin g them . Tha t wa s a moder n mythography , breathin g somethin g o f th e lat e antiqu e an d sixteenth-century spirit . Thi s slightl y esoteri c mythograph y o f th e nine teenth centur y i s not onl y a n importan t testimon y t o th e cultur e o f tha t time; i t ha s muc h t o sa y abou t wha t wa s though t an d believe d abou t the ar t an d th e image . Bachofe n wel l represent s thi s kin d o f myth ological scholarshi p i n th e moder n world . Johann Jako b Bachofe n (181^-1887) , th e so n o f a n ol d Basl e famil y of wealthy manufacturers , wa s a colorful figure. Hi s life, and particularl y his "afterlife/ ' wer e eventful . A jurist an d professo r o f Roma n la w a s a young man , h e lef t th e universit y earl y t o devot e himsel f t o studies , an d other activities , tha t ar e no t easil y place d i n a specific academi c pigeon hole. Bachofe n ha d th e rar e luc k o f bein g discovere d twice . Bot h "revivals," i f thi s i s th e righ t word , wer e focuse d o n hi s famou s wor k Mother Right (1861) . Friedric h Engel s dre w importan t conclusion s fro m Bachofen's pictur e o f primitive societ y fo r hi s own vie w of th e historica l process a s spelle d ou t i n The Origin of the Family (1884). Later , i n th e 1920s and 1930s , German right-win g though t trie d t o appropriat e Bach ofen unt o itself. 16 Bu t hi s rediscover y i n th e twentiet h centur y wa s th e act o f a group o f creativ e artist s an d literar y men . Tha t i t wa s precisel y artists an d writer s wh o rediscovere d hi m was , one feels , no t a matter o f 239

Modern Theories of Art chance. Bachofen , t o quot e Josep h Campbell , "ha s a great dea l t o sa y t o artists, writers , searcher s o f th e psyche , and , i n fact , anyon e awar e o f the enigmati c influenc e o f symbol s i n th e structurin g an d movin g o f lives." 17 I f Bachofe n i s mentione d today , i t i s becaus e hi s nam e i s attached t o a theor y o f socia l developmen t tha t claim s tha t th e first period i n huma n histor y wa s matriarchal . I n th e presen t context , I shall completely disregar d thi s theor y t o considerin g Bachofe n onl y a s a particularly significan t witnes s t o th e esoteri c mythologica l tradition ; we shal l tr y t o se e wha t i t wa s i n tha t traditio n tha t s o powerfull y appealed t o artist s an d ar t critics . I shall therefor e commen t onl y o n hi s Essay on Ancient Mortuary Symbolism. Bachofen wa s a prophet o f th e creativ e imagination . H e rea d mythol ogy a s a residu e o f tha t imagination . I n 18^4 , h e wrot e a n autobio graphic sketc h fo r hi s teacher , th e grea t juris t an d historia n o f la w Friedrich Kar l vo n Savigny , an d i n i t h e explaine d wha t fascinate d hi m in th e tombs . On e passage , a t least , i s worth ful l quotation . Ought I , by way of explaining my interest i n the ancient tombs , to speak of epigraphy an d epigrammatic s an d man y othe r relate d fields? I prefer t o thin k of the enjoymen t I have derived fro m m y visits to tombs. There are two road s to knowledge—th e longer , slower , mor e arduou s roa d o f rationa l combina tion an d th e shorte r pat h o f th e imagination , traverse d wit h th e forc e an d swiftness o f electricity . Arouse d b y direc t contac t wit h th e ancien t remains , the imaginatio n grasp s th e trut h a t on e stroke , withou t intermediar y links . The knowledg e acquire d i n thi s secon d wa y i s infinitel y mor e livin g an d colorful tha n th e product s of the understanding (Verstand). is In thi s brie f passag e w e stil l clearl y perceiv e th e ech o o f Creuzer' s voice, bu t w e als o se e tha t th e intervenin g decade s ha d brough t abou t a change i n emphasi s tha t amount s t o a significan t shif t i n outlook . Bachofen juxtapose s learnin g (epigraphy , epigrammatics ) t o th e direc t experience, an d h e clearl y reject s th e forme r i n favo r o f th e latter . Creuzer di d no t ye t envisag e a clas h betwee n erudit e scholarshi p an d immediate experience , thoug h th e conflic t wa s adumbrate d i n hi s thought . Moreover, b y explicitl y makin g "enjoyment " th e majo r justificatio n fo r looking a t th e tomb s Bachofe n betray s a n aestheti c attitud e tha t wa s not ye t withi n Creuzer' s intellectua l grasp . Bu t wha t doe s Bachofe n look fo r i n thes e tombs ? Wha t doe s h e hop e t o find i n thei r murals ? 240

The Symbol The walls o f th e columbariu m o f th e Vill a Pamphili , h e believed , presented t o th e inquire r th e recor d o f a n ancien t natur e religion . Tha t record wa s writte n i n symbols , an d th e symbolis m ha s no t ye t bee n deciphered. Bu t t o find th e ke y t o thes e secrets , on e ha s t o tak e th e images seriously . Bachofe n wa s impatien t wit h th e claim—s o fre quently mad e b y twentieth-centur y spectators—tha t form s an d motif s we d o no t understan d an d tha t strik e u s a s strang e deriv e fro m th e sheer wil l t o ornament . "Wher e w e [nowadays ] ar e accustome d t o se e artistic caprice , a t mos t a n intentio n t o decorate , th e earlies t huma n beings require d a though t expresse d i n symbols . . . . W e ar e no t ye t advanced fa r enoug h t o rea d directl y fro m th e page , th e symboli c language o f th e ancient s lik e a script wit h present-da y characters." 19 Now, ar e Bachofen' s studie s i n Gree k an d Roma n sepulchra l symbol ism regula r iconographi c essays ? I n othe r words , doe s h e propos e t o find ou t wha t peopl e a t a give n tim e an d i n a give n cultur e expresse d by certai n symbols ? No doub t h e wa s affecte d b y the grea t iconographi c tradition, bu t h e aime d a t somethin g else . The symbol s h e wa s tryin g t o decipher wer e no t jus t anothe r cultura l product , jus t a s importan t an d just a s limite d a s s o man y othe r product s o f cultures . Bachofe n hel d that th e columbariu m mural s containe d th e record s o f a primar y an d universal languag e o f symbols . In decodin g th e meaning s o f th e murals , he writes , " I attemp t t o disclos e a meaning fa r beyon d th e spher e o f ar t and archaeology. " Th e symbolis m o f thes e tombs , h e continues , rooted i n th e oldes t intuition s o f ou r race , passe d unchanged , thoug h ultimately n o longe r understood , int o th e er a o f wanin g paganism , an d eve n the ne w era opene d b y the Incarnatio n o f Christ. . . . The symbo l o f the egg provides a remarkable example of the transcending of time, while the motif of Ocnus th e rop e plaite r passe s beyon d nationa l barrier s an d i s encountered i n Egypt, Asia, Greece, and Italy. 20 And a s i f thi s wer e no t alread y sufficientl y clear , h e adds : "I t i s thi s character o f permanenc e tha t make s th e ancien t tomb s s o ver y mean ingful." Painte d image s a s th e universa l an d eterna l record s o f th e human soul—on e ca n understan d wh y th e historian s shuddered , an d why th e artist s rejoiced . To understan d ho w Bachofe n looke d a t ancien t images , i t i s perhap s 241

Modern Theories of Art best t o hav e a loo k a t hi s readin g o f on e scene , Ocnu s th e rop e plaiter . We kno w o f Ocnu s fro m severa l ancien t source s belongin g mainl y t o late Antiquity , th e perio d tha t looke d fo r hidde n meaning s i n object s a s well a s i n stories . Ocnu s repent s i n Hades , punishe d b y havin g t o twis t a rop e o f stra w tha t i s continually consume d b y a n ass . I t i s thi s subjec t that i s represente d o n on e o f th e mural s i n th e tom b structur e o f th e Villa Pamphili . Bachofen start s wit h th e image . Th e picture , h e says , i s "hiero glyph." 21 Thi s probabl y mean s tha t i t expresse s a n ide a i n a for m tha t is bot h esoteri c an d concise . Myth , tha t is , th e stor y told , i s th e explanation—the "exegesis, " a s h e says—o f th e visua l symbol . Th e image, i t follows , come s befor e th e story ; i t represent s a mor e primor dial laye r tha n eithe r th e myt h o r th e text . Tryin g t o recor d an d explai n what w e see , w e hav e t o stic k t o th e visible . Therefore , "th e meanin g can onl y b e physical." I t i s in thi s lin e of thought tha t Bachofe n declare s "Ocnus th e rop e plaite r i s a natur e symbol. " Hi s suppor t o f thi s clai m is characteristic . The meanin g o f rop e plaiting , h e i s sure , canno t b e doubte d fo r on e moment. "Rop e plaitin g i s frequentl y a symboli c action , base d o n th e same conception s a s th e spinnin g an d weavin g o f th e grea t mothers . The symbo l o f spinnin g an d weavin g represent s th e creative , formativ e power o f nature. " Thoug h h e naturall y doe s no t find i n ancien t litera ture a n explici t definitio n o f plaitin g a s th e symbo l o f th e creativ e power, hi s wid e an d profoun d eruditio n allow s hi m t o adduc e man y examples fro m Gree k mytholog y i n whic h plaitin g ca n b e understoo d as th e proces s o f shaping , o f casting th e amorphi c int o articulat e form . The destructiv e powe r o f natur e i s represente d b y a n animal , th e donkey tha t eat s Ocnus' s rope . Tha t thi s beas t i s specificall y a donke y strikes ou r autho r a s particularly meaningful . I n Antiquity, a s Bachofen' s wide learnin g tell s hi m onc e again , th e as s i s th e "phallic " beast , th e typical representativ e o f primar y natura l urges . Basin g himsel f o n Plu tarch a s well a s on severa l mythologica l stories , h e als o describes th e as s as th e beas t o f th e swamp . Moreover , th e howlin g an d fur y s o typica l of i t "confir m th e demoni c destructiv e natur e o f th e ass." 22 The conclusio n Bachofe n derive s fro m wha t h e see s i n th e sepulchra l mural i s tha t i n natur e "Tw o force s ar e locke d i n eterna l battle. " Th e 242

The Symbol meaning o f th e tw o poles , t o pu t i t briefly , i s tha t "Creatio n i s a n art ; destruction i s th e wor k o f brut e force . Creatio n rest s i n th e huma n hand; destructio n i s attributed t o th e demoni c anima l nature." 2 3 We shal l no t her e follo w th e author' s enthrallin g exploration s o f th e Ocnus stor y i n ancien t religions . No r ca n w e trac e hi s impac t o n som e modern psychologica l theories . (Jung's notio n o f "archetypes " has man y affinities wit h Bachofen' s doctrin e o f th e symbol. ) In th e presen t con text w e shoul d lik e onl y t o analyz e briefl y ho w Bachofe n look s a t th e ancient pictures , an d o n wha t h e focuse s hi s attention . I n th e followin g comments w e ar e no t studyin g Bachofen' s scholarl y "method" ; rathe r we ar e concerne d wit h wha t hi s procedure s ma y disclos e abou t th e theory o f ar t implie d i n th e nineteenth-centur y traditio n o f esoteri c mythology-research an d interpretation . I shal l briefl y summariz e fou r issues i n Bachofen' s stud y o f ancien t ar t tha t see m t o m e importan t fo r understanding th e theor y o f ar t tha t underlie s hi s studies . (i) "Natur e symbol " (Natursymbol) i s on e o f Bachofen' s expressions . It i s a notio n tha t doe s no t see m t o occur , a s a conventiona l term , i n earlier mythologica l literature ; i t i s als o no t mean t a s a symbo l fo r "nature." I t refers , a s ha s bee n suggested, 24 t o th e moti f o r t o th e painting a s a whole. To stic k t o ou r example , the juxtaposition o f Ocnu s plaiting th e rop e an d th e as s eatin g i t u p togethe r for m a "natur e symbol." This, w e ar e t o understan d (thoug h Bachofe n nowher e explic itly say s so) , i s no t a conventiona l sig n o r attribute . I f w e ar e no t mistaken, th e notio n o f symbo l i s her e use d i n a ver y fre e an d vagu e way. I t doe s no t exclud e th e spontaneou s creatio n o f image s an d th e forming o f ne w relationship s betwee n th e feature s an d motif s o f a n image. "Natur e symbol " i s a notio n tha t ha s bee n furthe r developed , though unde r differen t names , i n twentieth-centur y thought . (2) O f particula r interes t i s Bachofen' s ide a o f personification . Th e forces o f nature , recognize d a s such , ar e no t represente d i n abstrac t forms bu t becom e personifications . I n thi s intellectua l world , personifi cation ha s tw o aspects . O n th e on e hand , th e ter m indicate s tha t Bachofen himsel f i s no t concerne d wit h th e individual , tha t h e i s no t interested i n portraiture . Rathe r h e look s fo r th e typical . Alread y i n 18^i, speakin g o f hi s tri p t o Greece , h e sai d tha t wha t h e wishe s t o study ar e "species " (Arten) rather tha n individua l figures o r singl e work s H3

Modern Theories of Art of art . H e als o invented , thoug h h e rarel y used , a notio n h e calle d "Elementarismus" t o indicat e concentratio n o n th e type . Personificatio n is a wa y o f presentin g th e generi c t o th e eye . O n th e othe r hand , personification assure s tha t th e generic wil l no t sta y abstract , tha t i t wil l be rea l i n th e sens e tha t i t i s availabl e t o th e spectator' s direc t experi ence. Th e realit y o f personificatio n i s of a particular kind : i t i s a creatio n of th e min d tha t assume s sensor y qualities . Ocnu s a s th e personificatio n of ar t an d th e as s a s a n embodimen t o f th e beastl y i n natur e ar e case s in point . (3) Unusua l i n mythologica l a s wel l a s i n archaeologica l literatur e i s Bachofen's emphasi s o n th e psychologica l expressio n o f th e figures portrayed i n th e ancien t murals , an d o f th e mood s thes e painting s convey. Wha t w e hav e i n min d i s expressio n i n th e moder n sens e o f the term , tha t is , a moo d o r a n emotiona l stat e tha t i s manifested , no t by employin g conventiona l attribute s bu t b y a n overal l qualit y tha t i s hard t o pi n dow n t o thi s o r tha t detail . Thi s i s ho w Bachofe n open s hi s discussion o f th e mura l i n th e Vill a Pamphil i sepulcher : A bearde d ma n i s show n sittin g i n th e ope n country . . . . Hi s attitud e suggests repos e afte r th e day' s work , an d a profoun d earnestness . . . . Th e whole scene, the old man, the animal, the farm, i s bathed in the tranquillity of evening. Dee p stillnes s prevails . Th e silenc e o f th e tom b seem s infuse d int o the picture. 25 Traditional studie s o f mytholog y mad e extensiv e us e o f ancien t monuments, bu t the y ha d littl e us e fo r th e mood s conveye d b y thes e paintings. Whateve r ar t historica l writing s existe d a t hi s tim e als o pai d more limite d attentio n t o th e overal l expression . Suc h consideratio n o f the expressiv e qualit y a s w e find i n Bachofen' s wor k ma y b e considere d an elemen t o f a theor y o f art . (4) Wha t i s the mythologica l symbo l mean t t o show , on e finally asks . The ai m i s to understan d th e idea s of Antiquity a s a whole, an d t o gras p them intuitively . Quotin g Plutarc h onc e again , Bachofe n claim s tha t i n mythological image s th e initiat e sees , "a s i n a mirror , th e mor e sublim e truths o f th e mysteries. " Thes e truth s ar e expresse d i n th e sepulchra l murals, the y ar e conveyed , a s h e says , i n "th e languag e o f th e tombs. " Here Bachofe n onc e agai n extol s th e powe r o f th e image , a powe r tha t 244

The Symbol remains unmatche d b y an y othe r medium . Equatin g "symbol' ' an d "image," he claim s tha t Human languag e i s to o feebl e t o conve y al l th e thought s arouse d b y th e alternation o f lif e an d deat h an d th e sublim e hope s o f th e initiate . Onl y th e [static] symbo l an d th e relate d myt h ca n mee t thi s highe r need . Th e symbo l awakens intimations ; speec h ca n onl y explain . Th e symbo l pluck s al l th e strings o f th e huma n spiri t a t once ; speec h i s compelle d t o tak e u p a singl e thought a t a time . Th e symbo l strike s it s root s i n th e mos t secre t depth s o f the soul ; languag e skim s ove r th e surfac e o f th e understandin g lik e a sof t breeze. The symbol aims inward; language outward. 26 The stud y o f mytholog y eventuall y flows int o a psychologica l theor y of ancient painting .

III. TH E SYMBOLI C LANDSCAP E I. ROMANTI C CONCER N WIT H LANDSCAP E

In th e precedin g page s w e hav e bee n following , i f onl y i n outline , a historical proces s tha t i n th e centur y betwee n Winckelman n an d Bach ofen transforme d though t o n paintin g an d sculpture . Thi s process , or a t least som e o f it s majo r aspects , ca n b e describe d a s a secularizatio n o f sorts: conventiona l symbolism , derivin g fro m firmly established , time honored sign s an d attributes , wa s bein g graduall y replace d b y th e expression o f moods an d emotion s tha t coul d b e grasped directl y b y th e spectator. Th e belie f tha t som e symbol s ca n b e understoo d withou t relying o n a n acquaintanc e wit h cultura l code s permeate d th e depictio n and readin g o f mythologica l figures an d themes . Naturall y i t als o af fected othe r fields o f stud y an d creation . I t goe s withou t saying tha t these ne w view s o f th e readin g o f symboli c shape s involved , o r wer e determined by , significan t change s i n subjec t matter . A s fa r a s actua l painting i s concerned , i t i s wel l know n tha t emphasi s wa s place d o n new themes . Thi s i s als o tru e fo r theoretica l reflection . Landscap e painting wa s amon g th e ne w theme s o f ar t theory , togethe r wit h th e possibilities o f intuitiv e symbolis m tha t i t offered . Readin g earl y nine teenth-century theor y o f landscap e painting , on e sense s th e writers ' HE

Modern Theories of Art fascination wit h thi s newl y discovere d country , it s unknow n vista s an d horizons; one als o watches, a s in a sharply focuse d mirror , th e unfoldin g of th e majo r problem s o f Romanti c thought . Concern wit h landscap e painting , i t i s wel l known , di d no t begi n with Romanti c ar t theory . I n th e first volum e o f thi s book , I hav e commented briefl y o n th e conceptua l categorie s o f landscap e paintin g as the y emerge d betwee n th e Renaissanc e an d classicis t academism. 27 Here I ca n therefor e concentrat e o n th e perio d tha t begin s wit h th e late eighteent h century . Around th e tur n o f th e century , landscap e fascinate d th e mind s o f artists, philosophers , an d student s o f literature . Whil e t o som e exten t this wa s als o tru e o f natura l vista s (seas, mountains), interes t wa s mainl y concentrated o n pictoria l renderings . I shal l selec t a fe w example s o f this concer n wit h landscap e painting , discussin g aspect s tha t thro w some ligh t o n th e emergenc e o f a ne w symbolism . I shal l star t wit h what literar y me n an d philosopher s ha d t o sa y an d wil l the n com e t o the painters . In th e traditiona l hierarch y o f pictoria l genres , landscap e paintin g occupied a lo w run g o f th e ladder . I n eighteenth-centur y workshops , the statu s o f landscap e paintin g wa s tha t inherite d fro m earlie r genera tions, a s w e hav e see n i n Gerar d d e Lairesse' s treatis e o n paintin g (se e above, pp . 6 7 ff.) . Writin g a t th e en d o f th e century , Lessin g doe s no t seem t o hav e doubte d th e validit y o f thi s schema . Th e representatio n o f nature i s no t valuabl e i n itself . Onl y i f i t passe s throug h th e filter o f poetic imitatio n doe s i t acquir e value . I n landscape , Lessin g notes , ther e is n o idea l beauty. 28 At th e beginnin g o f th e nineteent h century , fro m 180 2 t o 1804 , Friedrich Schlege l compose d hi s Description of Paintings in Paris and the Netherlands, als o commenting on th e general natur e of landscape painting . Landscape, h e remarks , wa s know n first a s th e backgroun d o f symboli c paintings (h e i s obviousl y referrin g t o religiou s art) , bu t i t "i s i n it s proper spher e an d endowe d wit h it s ful l forc e o f expressio n whe n thu s introduced alone. " Withou t symbolism , usuall y provide d b y som e figures recallin g sacre d events , "landscap e an d still-lif e paintin g become s a mere exercis e o f mechanica l facilit y i n surmountin g difficulties , o r eve n declines int o a discordan t an d worthles s mediu m fo r th e bar e copyin g 246

The Symbol of visibl e an d sensibl e charms." 29 In SchlegeP s comment s on e clearl y observes th e ambivalenc e characteristi c o f th e Romanti c position . O n the on e hand , h e cling s t o th e dogm a accordin g t o whic h landscap e a s such i s without inheren t value ; on th e other , h e sense s tha t i t ca n carr y powerful expression . I f landscap e paintin g i s t o b e a branc h o f paintin g in it s ow n right , Schlege l prefer s " a simpl e confine d style, " lik e tha t o f the Dutc h landscap e painte r Ruysdael . At th e sam e tim e th e Description wa s composed , th e youn g philoso pher F . W . J . Schellin g wa s deliverin g hi s lecture s o n th e philosoph y o f art (Philosophie der Kunst) i n Jen a (1802-03) , an d repeate d the m shortl y afterwards (1804-0^ ) i n Wiirzburg . I n th e cours e o f thes e lectures , h e too mad e som e comment s o n landscap e painting . Schellin g doe s no t rate landscap e paintin g an y highe r tha n doe s th e traditiona l hierarch y of pictoria l genres . However , h e interpret s i t i n a ne w wa y an d stresse s aspects tha t anticipat e futur e development s i n ar t theory . Amon g th e philosophers i t wa s Schellin g wh o stresse d tha t landscap e paintin g is a "subjective" ar t form . I n th e landscape , h e says , "onl y subjectiv e repre sentation i s possible , becaus e th e landscap e ha s realit y onl y i n th e spectator's eye." 3 0 Gone , then , i s th e traditiona l ide a o f correctness , and o f measurin g nature . Landscap e painting , i t turn s out , i s elevate d above nature , an d thus , perhap s paradoxically , become s a specificall y human typ e o f painting . I t necessaril y focuse s o n empirica l reality , a s Schelling admits . Bu t th e mountain s an d valleys , th e river s an d forest s and skie s tha t compos e i t ar e onl y a "cover " (Hulle). I n a landscap e painting tha t i s a grea t wor k o f ar t th e inne r cor e i s abl e t o shin e through. "Th e tru e object , th e idea , remain s withou t shape, " h e says . How, then , ca n a paintin g conve y tha t idea ? In a grea t landscap e painting, th e spectato r become s a n activ e partne r i n bringin g abou t th e effect achieve d b y th e wor k o f art . "I t depend s o n th e beholder, " ou r philosopher asserts , "t o pic k i t [th e idea ] ou t fro m th e mist y an d shapeless" reality , whic h i s what th e landscap e paintin g directl y shows . Among artist s an d ar t critics , ne w interes t i n th e landscap e pictur e stirred eve n earlier . Followin g th e proces s o f painters ' changin g atti tudes t o landscape , one witnesses th e gradual crystallizatio n o f a moder n view o f art . Th e Swis s painter , poet , an d criti c Salomo n Gessne r (1730 1788), wh o publishe d hi s Brief iiber die Landschaftsmalerey an Herrn Fusslin 247

Modern Theories of Art (Letter o n Landscap e Paintin g t o Mr . Fuseli ) i n 1770 , stil l belonge d t o the perio d o f classicism . Classicism , a s w e know , di d no t giv e prid e o f place t o landscap e painting , an d thi s i s stil l Gessner' s explici t opinion . His practica l attitud e i s shape d b y th e mode s o f though t prevailin g i n the workshops . H e look s t o othe r artists , particularly grea t artist s o f th e past, fo r "models. " Thus, h e tell s hi s reader , h e ha d copied , an d learne d from, Claud e Lorrain' s dusk y distances , fro m Philip s Wouwerman' s soft, flowing hills , an d fro m Claes z Berchem' s rock y ground s (not e th e ecclectic combinatio n o f painter s belongin g t o differen t school s an d traditions). Hi s attentio n t o detail s an d isolate d motif s tha t ca n provid e models fo r imitatio n als o extend s t o nature , suc h a s th e trun k o f a tree , or eve n onl y a par t o f it . Salomo n Gessne r i s probabl y th e las t painte r to repea t Cennin o Cennini' s advic e t o carefull y portra y a piec e o f ston e "when yo u wis h t o pain t a mountain." 31 For ou r presen t discussio n i t i s more importan t t o not e that , i n spit e of Gessner' s traditiona l outlook , som e type s o f landscapes , particularl y what h e call s "ideal " landscapes , acquir e a Utopia n qualit y i n hi s mind . Nature a s th e blissfu l environmen t o f innocen t man : thi s i s the messag e at leas t on e typ e o f landscap e paintin g conveys . I t wa s thi s vie w tha t i n the earl y nineteent h centur y provoke d shar p criticism . "Wher e ar e there shepherd s lik e these? " sarcasticall y aske d th e poe t an d painte r Friedrich Miiller. 32 Salomo n Gessner , i t ha s occasionally bee n noted , di d not exce l b y hi s analytica l mind , bu t hi s influenc e o n painter s an d writers o n ar t theor y wa s wid e an d stimulating . The Swis s aestheticia n J . G . Sulze r (1720—1779 ) belonge d entirel y t o the worl d o f classicis m (h e wa s onl y tw o year s younge r tha n Winckel mann). I t i s no t surprisin g tha t h e considere d landscap e a rathe r primitive kin d o f painting . Ver y attentiv e observatio n o f lifeles s nature , he thought , i s th e "firs t ste p ma n take s t o reac h understandin g an d a proper dispositio n o f mind. " I n hi s articl e entitle d "Landscape," 33 h e not onl y collecte d a considerabl e amoun t o f informatio n abou t land scape paintin g i n moder n time s (adducin g th e name s o f th e artist s wh o excelled i n thi s field), bu t h e als o stresse d th e clos e connectio n betwee n nature an d th e characte r (Gemiit) of man . Eve n i n natur e itself , whe n not represente d i n pictures , landscape s ar e abl e t o evok e aestheti c experiences i n th e spectator . Nobl e feeling s sti r ou r soul s whe n w e loo k 248

The Symbol at certai n vistas , whil e othe r view s o f natur e fill u s wit h fea r an d trembling. Paintin g therefore , h e concludes , finds i n natura l landscap e the materials , a s it were , "t o affec t th e disposition s o f men." Landscap e painting thu s become s th e ar t o f producin g moods . I n Sulzer' s articl e this notio n i s onl y intimated , bu t th e lin e o f though t canno t b e mis taken. A serie s o f landscap e paintings , i n whic h appropriat e figures o f men an d beast s ar e seen , "woul d b e a tru e orbis pictus tha t woul d provide t o yout h an d t o mor e matur e ag e al l th e usefu l basi c notion s (Grundbegriffe), an d woul d tun e eac h strin g o f th e min d (Getniit) to it s proper tone. " A clima x i n th e discussio n o f th e natur e an d positio n o f landscap e painting i s reache d i n a n article , "Ube r di e Landschaftsmalerei ,, (O n Landscape Painting) , publishe d i n 1803 . The author , Kar l Ludwi g Fer now, wa s no t himsel f a painter , bu t wha t h e sai d ca n b e considere d a true reflectio n o f th e artisti c though t o f hi s time . A frien d an d biogra pher of Asmu s Jacob Car s tens, Ferno w als o attentivel y listene d t o wha t other artist s ha d t o say . Th e articl e o n landscap e paintin g i s dedicate d to anothe r painter , Johann Christia n Reinhart , wh o wa s als o a friend o f the author . Addressin g Reinhart , Ferno w write s tha t th e articl e i s "th e fruit o f many instructiv e hour s I spent, i n contemplation an d in conver sation, i n your workshop , amon g you r works , studies , an d sketches." 34 Fernow distinguishe s betwee n tw o type s o f landscap e painting : "prospect painting, " an d th e "representatio n o f idea l natur e scenes. " Only th e latte r ca n b e considere d art . Bu t Ferno w i s to o muc h roote d in neoclassica l though t t o approac h landscap e paintin g wit h a n alto gether ope n mind . Readin g hi s article , on e stil l clearl y sense s th e tyranny o f th e belie f tha t th e huma n figure is the onl y trul y appropriat e subject o f painting . The "landscap e i n itself, " say s Fernow , "i s t o b e considered a s a n empt y scene. " The mor e importan t th e figures popu lating the scene, and the more poeticall y the y are treated by the painter, "the greate r [also ] th e interes t i n th e landscape." 35 H e trie s t o intro duce a hierarch y o f type s withi n landscap e paintin g itself . The lowes t type i s foun d i n Dutc h painting . Here , h e believes , th e natura l vie w represented i s neve r treate d i n a "poetic " spirit . Th e nex t typ e i s represented b y Swis s an d Scottish landscapes . I n th e former , natur e i s grandiose (thi s i s particularl y tru e fo r mountai n pieces) ; th e latte r ar e 249

Modern Theories oj Art populated, an d enlivened , b y Ossiani c myths . I n Fernow' s view s o f bot h Swiss an d Scottis h landscapes , on e perceives , a s ha s bee n observed , th e impact o f th e Sturm und Drang movement an d o f th e lat e eighteenth century fascinatio n wit h th e Sublime. 36 Th e thir d an d highes t typ e o f landscape i s provide d b y th e South , mainl y Italy . Her e w e no t onl y se e nature i n it s ful l amplitude , i n harmoniousl y sof t color , bu t ennoble d b y the ruin s o f classica l temples , aqueducts , an d tombs . While Fernowl s hierarch y o f landscap e type s i s essentiall y informe d by neoclassica l thought , anothe r aspec t o f hi s attitud e t o landscap e indicates a possible clas h betwee n tha t though t an d fascinatio n wit h th e Sublime. Ferno w distinguishe s betwee n wha t h e term s tw o u styles" o f landscape painting , th e "beautiful " an d th e "great. " I n th e beautifu l style, th e shape s an d color s ar e alway s endowe d wit h "grac e an d charm." I n th e grea t style , natur e appear s a s a "great , activ e powe r either i n th e menacin g seriousnes s o f a n approachin g stor m . . . o r i n the trace s o f th e destructiv e effect s i t leave s behind. " The expressiv e qualitie s o f landscap e ar e no t explicitl y treate d b y Fernow, bu t the y underli e mos t o f hi s discussio n o f thi s ar t form . Ho w does landscap e produc e a mood ? Thi s i s th e questio n tha t occupie s hi s mind. Sometime s h e trie s t o appl y t o th e analysi s o f landscap e paintin g categories develope d fo r th e discussio n o f figural art . Thus , t o produc e an aestheti c mood , h e believes , a landscap e mus t hav e "character. " B y this h e mean s th e configuratio n o f permanen t feature s (th e structur e o f the ground , vegetation , buildings) , thes e feature s bein g see n unde r changing condition s (light , seasons) . Wit h regar d t o character , on e understands, landscap e paintin g i s no t differen t fro m figure painting . I n figure painting , too , beaut y depend s o n th e figure's character. 37 In th e presen t context , however , th e mean s b y whic h th e painte r o f landscapes evoke s certai n mood s ar e no t a s importan t a s th e ver y fac t that landscap e paintin g i s a mood-creatin g ar t form . Ferno w i s over come b y emotio n whe n h e see s remarkabl e sight s i n natur e a s well. 38 He understand s landscap e paintin g a s a n ar t for m tha t aims , thoug h maybe onl y implicitly , a t shapin g moods . I t i s precisel y i n thi s respec t that h e compare s landscap e paintin g wit h tha t mos t abstrac t o f arts , music. "On e i s i n th e habi t o f comparin g landscap e paintin g t o music, " he write s i n th e introductio n t o hi s Romische Studien. He goe s on t o stres s 2£0

The Symbol the differenc e betwee n th e two . Wha t h e accept s i s onl y th e similarit y of effec t the y hav e o n th e spectator . "Thi s comparison/ ' w e rea d further i n th e introduction , i s base d o n u the similarit y o f th e effect s that color s an d tone s produce , bot h individuall y o n th e sensation s (Empjindungen) and , i n harmoni c association , o n th e feeling s (Gefiihl)." A landscape painting , lik e a piec e o f music , set s ou r mood , an d i t doe s s o even befor e ou r reaso n i s abl e t o gras p wha t i s represente d o r ho w th e effect i s achieved . In seein g landscap e paintin g a s a n almos t abstrac t mood-producin g art form , an d i n comparin g i t wit h music , a grea t dea l o f nineteenth and eve n twentieth-centur y though t o n ar t i s anticipated . The first decad e o r s o o f th e nineteent h centur y sa w a furthe r deepening o f artists ' concer n wit h landscap e painting , and , particularly , further exploration s o f th e powe r t o produc e mood s tha t seeme d inherent i n thi s ar t form . Th e spectator' s expectation s an d attitude s were als o considered . Muc h depend s o n th e "dispositio n o f mind " (Gemiitsbeschaffenheit) wit h whic h th e spectato r approache s a landscap e painting, sai d th e painte r Philip p Hacker t (1 7 37-1807), whos e fragmen tary observation s o n thi s subjec t wer e edite d an d publishe d b y non e other tha n Goethe. 39 Hacker t admit s tha t h e wa s move d t o writ e dow n his "theoretical-practical " observation s b y readin g Sulzer' s articl e o n the subject . Landscape painting , Hacker t boldl y declares , ha s th e sam e valu e a s all othe r fields o f painting . H e ma y wel l hav e bee n th e first artis t t o explicitly mak e thi s claim . Landscap e portrayal , h e seem s t o hav e believed, require s scientifi c preparatio n an d painterl y skill . H e himsel f was traine d i n optics , perspective , an d eve n geology . Ye t h e wa s awar e that i t i s no t scientifi c correctnes s tha t endow s a landscap e paintin g with it s particula r value . I n oppositio n t o Lessing , h e claim s tha t ther e is idea l beaut y i n nature . Th e landscap e painte r make s thi s beaut y visible. "It i s hardl y ope n t o doubt, " wrot e anothe r painter , Car l Grass , i n 1809, "tha t th e notion s concernin g thi s branc h o f ar t [landscap e paint ing], whic h ha s bee n s o popular particularl y i n moder n times , were, an d are, vague r tha n thos e concernin g an y othe r field o f painting." 40 Here , then, w e lear n bot h o f th e popularit y o f landscap e paintin g an d o f th e 251

Modern Theories of Art feeling tha t it s "notions " ar e no t wel l enoug h defined . A few year s later , Carl Gras s publishe d a grea t book , Sizihsche Reise oder Ausziige aus dem Tagebucb eines Landschaftsmalers (Sicilia n Journe y o r Excerpt s fro m th e Diary o f a Landscap e Painter ) (Stuttgar t an d Tubingen , I 8 I $ ) , whic h tries t o com e a step close r t o th e ol d idea l o f a n orbis pictus. Landscape painting , say s Car l Gras s i n th e earlie r article , ha s a wid e range; i t offer s th e spectato r a ladde r tha t lead s fro m th e simples t imitation o f th e insignifican t objec t (o f "th e true") , "throug h th e pleasant an d charming , t o th e highes t poetr y o f th e Romanti c an d th e sublime." Bu t Car l Grass , mor e tha n an y othe r artis t o r write r befor e him, make s landscap e paintin g int o a mirro r imag e o f th e artist' s mind . A wor k o f ar t wil l mov e th e beholder , h e says , onl y i f i t show s "trace s of independen t life, " onl y i f i t emerge s fro m th e amplitud e o f th e artist's dispositio n (Gemiit). Thi s quality , ou r painter-write r thinks , becomes mor e pointe d i n landscap e painting . H e asks : I s no t landscap e painting th e ar t "i n whic h infinitel y muc h stil l remain s t o b e done , an d in whic h th e geniu s ca n still , i f no t brea k ne w ground , a t leas t pav e new path s o f hi s own? " 2. CARU S

It i s a t thi s stag e tha t th e mos t importan t o f treatise s o n landscap e painting wa s written , Carus' s Letters on Landscape Painting. Carl Gusta v Caru s (1789-1869 ) wa s suc h a many-side d personalit y that i t i s difficul t t o fit hi m int o an y regula r category . Professo r o f obstetrics i n Dresden , persona l physicia n t o th e kin g o f Saxony , autho r of a popula r textboo k o n zootonom y (th e anatom y an d dissectio n o f animals), h e wa s a prolifi c write r o n a variet y o f subjects ; hi s boo k o n the symbolis m o f th e huma n figure (18^3 ) i s perhap s th e las t represen tative o f a hermetic , Neoplatoni c approac h t o th e physica l structur e o f man. I n additio n t o al l this , h e wa s als o a painter . Hi s philosophy , a s stated i n hi s memoir s (i n itsel f a n interestin g documen t o f mid-nine teenth-century intellectua l life) , wa s informe d b y on e idea : i t i s "th e thought, alread y surmise d b y man y philosopher s o f Antiquity , concern ing th e inner , necessary , an d unconditiona l compoundin g o f th e world 252

The Symbol structure int o a unique , infinite , organi c whole , i n on e word : th e ide a of th e world-soul , whic h the n wa s agai n introduce d int o scienc e b y Schelling's grea t an d luminou s mind." 41 H e turne d t o painting , a s h e said, t o se t himsel f fre e fro m th e "turbi d condition s o f th e soul. " I n hi s Lebenserinnerungen und Denkwiirdigkeiten (Memoirs ) (I , pp . 16 9 ff) , h e argues tha t "th e mor e heavil y troubl e o f th e sou l o r lonely , dee p pai n are manifeste d i n som e ingenious , dar k painting , an d appea r ther e a s a kind o f secre t reflection , th e soone r peac e o f mind returns. " In 1831 , Carus publishe d hi s Briefe uber Landschaftsmalerei (Letter s o n Landscape Painting) , an d a secon d editio n appeare d onl y fou r year s later. Th e boo k wa s writte n muc h earlier , however , th e majo r par t o f i t in i8i£ . Tha t Caru s shoul d hav e compose d hi s theor y o f landscap e painting i n Dresde n a t tha t tim e seems , i n retrospect , no t a matte r o f chance. Th e collectio n o f painting s i n Dresde n containe d representativ e works o f th e acknowledge d master s o f tha t art ; her e Caru s coul d hav e seen importan t painting s b y Ruysdael , Poussin , an d Claud e Lorrain . Jus t as tw o generation s earlie r thi s collectio n ha d stimulate d th e youn g Winckelmann t o writ e hi s Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works of Art, i t may no w hav e influence d Caru s t o compos e hi s treatis e o n landscap e painting. Moreover , precisel y i n 1800 , th e Academ y o f Ar t i n Dresde n — t h e first rea l academ y o f ar t i n Germany , a s Nicola s Pevsne r put s it 4 2 —appointed Johan n Christia n Klenge l professo r o f landscape paint ing, probabl y on e o f th e ver y first appointment s o f it s kind . I n 1801 , Caspar Davi d Friedric h exhibite d i n Dresde n hi s first landscap e paint ing. Later , Caru s wa s closel y connecte d wit h Friedrich , an d wrot e particularly abou t hi s landscapes . Th e Briefe uber Landschaftsmalerei wer e obviously writte n ou t o f th e concer n wit h landscap e paintin g tha t occupied a n importan t plac e i n th e reflection s o f artist s an d critic s i n his cit y an d hi s time . The Briefe ar e writte n i n a n easy , persona l style . Th e carefu l reader , however, i s not misle d b y th e conversationa l tone ; behind th e colloquia l presentation ther e lie s a syste m o f analytica l distinctions . T o b e sure , these distinction s ar e no t alway s carrie d ou t consistently ; sometime s notions overlap , sometime s the y appea r rathe r surprisingly , withou t being sufficientl y prepare d fo r i n th e previou s stage s o f th e discussion . 2£3

Modern Theories of Art The mai n lin e o f Carus' s thought , however , i s clear . I n th e followin g observations, I shal l discus s thos e o f hi s view s tha t ar e relate d t o th e major them e o f thi s chapter , th e transformatio n o f th e symbo l i n art . In landscap e painting , Caru s believes , w e mus t distinguis h betwee n three majo r components ; h e call s the m Truth , Meaning , an d Object. 43 "Truth" provide s th e "bod y o f th e wor k o f art, " i t conjure s u p th e portion o f natur e represented ; i n mor e scholasti c terms , i t i s also calle d "the correspondenc e o f art an d nature. " A landscape painting , however , is no t jus t th e reflectio n o f a piec e o f natur e i n a picture . I n th e landscape picture , w e fee l th e impac t o f a creativ e mind . I t i s th e min d that select s a give n piec e o f visibl e natur e an d transform s i t int o a n organic whole . B y s o doin g th e min d endow s th e landscap e wit h "Meaning." Landscape , i t appears , expresse s a psychologica l stat e o r condition. T o expres s a given conditio n o f mind , yo u hav e t o selec t th e appropriate objects . No t ever y objec t i s abl e t o expres s al l menta l conditions. Here , then , w e see th e rol e o f th e "Object. " On th e basi s of thes e distinctions , Caru s describes , i n th e thir d letter , the ai m o f landscap e painting . I t i s th e "representatio n o f a certai n mood o f th e sou l (meaning ) b y th e imitatio n o f a correspondin g moo d of natur e (truth) " (p . 41) . Wha t h e term s "th e moo d o f nature " i s a new notion , no t previousl y discussed ; influence d b y a great traditio n o f natural philosophy , i t wil l occup y u s late r on . The ver y feasibilit y o f landscape painting , Caru s says , depends o n ou r understanding—possibly eve n solving—thre e problems . Thes e prob lems ar e relate d to , bu t no t identica l with , th e thre e distinction s I hav e just mentioned . I shall pu t thes e problems , th e cor e o f Carus' s philoso phy o f landscap e painting , i n questio n form . The y ar e then : (1 ) Ho w d o the stirring s (Regungen) of th e min d (o r soul ) correspon d t o th e state s of nature ? (2 ) Wha t effect s d o th e individua l object s represente d i n th e landscape have ? (3 ) I n wha t wa y i s th e ide a o f beaut y achieve d i n th e representation o f th e lif e o f nature ? Le t u s briefl y discus s th e answer s Carus offer s t o eac h o f thes e questions . Without goin g int o th e broade r philosophica l contex t an d foundatio n of thes e problems , le t u s first remembe r tha t wheneve r Caru s speak s about wha t w e se e i n th e ope n landscap e o r wha t w e observ e o n th e painted canvas , h e alway s mean s wha t reside s i n ou r mind s an d souls . 2£4

The Symbol Whatever els e th e object s an d notion s discusse d ma y represent , the y are alway s "menta l images " (Vorstellung), an d the y ar e alway s plante d i n the contex t o f ou r consciousnes s (p . 44) . I t i s onl y afte r havin g stresse d this poin t tha t w e ca n as k ho w th e correspondenc e betwee n mood s an d natural state s become s feasible . Both ma n an d nature , th e Romanti c philosophe r believes , ar e rule d by th e sam e vita l rhythm ; thei r lif e cycle s sho w th e sam e stage s o f unfolding o r becomin g an d th e sam e essentia l state s o f being . In th e organic lif e cycle , no matte r i n wha t particula r domai n i t may b e found , Carus distinguishe s fou r basi c states . H e call s them : (1 ) development ; (2) consummate representatio n (maturity) ; (3) wilting; and (4 ) complet e destruction. In nature , w e encounte r thi s rhyth m everywhere , i n th e seasons o f th e year , i n th e time s o f th e day , an d s o forth . Doe s something i n man' s min d an d hear t correspon d t o thes e state s an d thei r sequence? Carus , i t seems , construct s a psychologica l counterpart . In our emotiona l life , h e distinguishe s fou r majo r group s o f mood s an d states o f mind . Ther e is , first, th e feelin g o f soaring ; then , th e feelin g o f inner clearnes s an d tranquillity ; third , th e feelin g o f wilting an d depres sion; and , finally, letharg y an d apathy . Ther e is , then, a correspondenc e between th e state s o f natur e an d th e state s o f th e min d (pp . 4^ ff.) . The ide a o f th e lif e cycle , a particula r versio n o f th e philosoph y o f organic life , dominate d Romanti c thought . I t i s no t fo r m e her e t o survey th e significanc e o f wha t migh t b e calle d th e "organi c model' ' i n Romanticism. I t i s a well-know n subject , and , i n literar y aesthetics , i t has bee n frequentl y studie d an d assessed. 44 I shoul d lik e onl y t o stres s that Carus' s thought , i n al l th e fields o f hi s inquir y an d reflection , clearly show s th e influenc e o f tha t model . Th e cycl e o f organi c lif e appears t o hi m th e imag e o f a n all-encompassin g ideal . H e frequentl y uses suc h expression s a s "life-form," o r eve n "th e forming , unconsciou s life," wher e th e Platoni c tradition , fro m whic h h e drew , aske d fo r "Idea." Th e developmen t o f th e individua l fro m embry o t o ol d ag e appeared t o hi m a s a mirro r imag e o f th e lif e an d unfoldin g o f th e Idea.45 Coming bac k t o ou r specifi c subject , th e correspondenc e betwee n states o f natur e an d state s o f mind , w e ma y ask , wha t artist s o r critic s were likel y t o hav e learne d fro m Carus' s treatmen t o f th e congruenc e *SS

Modern Theories of Art of natur e an d th e huma n soul . On e conclusio n woul d hav e impose d itself upon an y reader who took th e Briefe iiber Landschaftsmalerei seriously : emotions, o r moods , ar e th e characteristic s o f state s i n natur e an d man ; they ar e als o th e criteri a o f th e congruenc e o f th e tw o domains . The genera l parallelis m betwee n state s o f natur e an d state s o f min d possibly remain s a n abstrac t reflection , remove d fro m th e artist' s prac tical concerns . Carus' s discussio n o f th e secon d problem , however , i s of direct, immediat e significanc e fo r th e painter . Here , w e remember , th e question is , wha t ar e th e effect s o f individua l landscap e feature s ("ob jects") o n ou r mind . Th e principl e o f thes e "effects " i s agai n th e belie f in a correspondenc e betwee n th e characte r o f a given natura l stat e an d the moo d i t evoke s i n th e perso n wh o experience s thi s state . Speakin g in ver y genera l terms , th e unorganize d ha s a chillin g effec t upo n us ; objects tha t ar e i n th e stat e o f self-formatio n (o r o f bein g formed ) ar e stimulating; and , finally, th e accomplishe d ha s a calmin g effec t (p . go). Carus doe s no t tel l u s wha t make s hi m thin k tha t th e state s o f natur e he mention s d o indee d induc e i n th e beholde r th e particula r mood s described. I n th e presen t context , w e canno t attemp t t o guess , o r infer , what hi s reason s wer e fo r thes e assertion s tha t h e enunciate s s o firmly, nor ca n w e investigat e whethe r o r no t hi s these s ar e correct . Fo r th e student o f art theory , thes e broa d idea s ar e les s fruitful tha n wha t Caru s has t o sa y abou t individua l characteristic s o f th e landscape . In hi s discussio n o f specifi c features , Caru s cover s th e majo r theme s of landscap e painting , a s h e kne w it , includin g th e Dutch , Italian , an d German traditions . Lookin g a t a bare rock , whic h doe s no t provid e foo d or protectio n t o organi c life , w e fee l "strangel y withdraw n an d hard ened." Bu t i f th e roc k i s weathere d down , begin s t o crumble , an d shows th e first trace s o f vegetation , ou r feeling s becom e milde r an d warmer. Th e clea r sky—th e essenc e o f ai r an d light—i s th e prope r image o f infinity . Bein g th e dom e o f landscap e a s a whole , i t "attract s us deepl y an d powerfully. " Clouds , o r eve n othe r object s towerin g u p on to p o f eac h other , restric t ou r gaz e a t infinity , o r obstruc t i t completely. Th e spectato r whos e vie w i s thu s blocke d i s overcom e b y oppressive moods . Water , insofa r a s i t i s th e sourc e o f lif e an d th e reflection o f th e heaven s o n earth , i s ambivalen t i n it s effects ; i t evoke s both seren e an d dar k longings . Th e worl d o f vegetation—locate d 2J6

The Symbol between heaven , water , an d earth—i s particularl y diversifie d i n th e moods i t induces . Th e lus h plan t lif e o f th e valle y elicit s feeling s o f abundant life ; th e tre e whos e foliag e ha s turne d yellow , o r th e dea d tree, produc e a mood o f melancholy an d gloo m (pp . ^0-^3) . Reading Carus' s observation s o n th e mood s induce d b y the individua l features o f landscape , on e wonder s wha t hi s ultimat e intention s were . His procedure s remin d u s o f th e symboli c traditio n tha t fo r centurie s informed bot h artist s an d critics , th e productio n an d th e readin g o f works o f art . Th e ver y foundatio n o f th e symboli c traditio n wa s th e existence o f a store-hous e o f motif s tha t carrie d articulat e meanings . From Cesar e Ripa' s Iconologia t o Winckelmann' s Versuch einer Allegorie, writers repeate d tha t a give n figure, o r motif , ha s a specifi c meaning. 46 Carus, i n hi s theor y o f landscap e painting , differ s fro m th e symboli c tradition i n claimin g tha t a certain moti f "induce s a mood," rathe r tha n saying tha t i t u has a meaning. " Thi s difference , however , i s no t pro found. Tha t a motif , o r a wor k o f art , "has " a meanin g wa s ofte n understood a s th e spectator' s undergoin g a certai n experience . Carus' s affinity t o th e symboli c tradition , then , i s rather obvious . Carus depart s fro m th e mythographi c traditio n no t s o muc h i n hi s procedures an d mode s o f though t a s i n th e materia l t o whic h h e applie s himself. Th e concer n o f humanisti c mythographer s wa s concentrate d almost exclusivel y o n th e huma n figure an d it s attributes. Caru s himself , in hi s lat e wor k o n th e symbolis m o f th e huma n figure, represent s perhaps th e las t stag e o f thi s tradition. 47 I n hi s Briefe uber Landschaftsmalerei, however, h e extend s thi s mod e o f though t t o nature . Landscap e i s thereby endowe d wit h th e dignit y hithert o reserve d fo r th e huma n figure, an d i t i s conceive d a s a n equa l t o ma n i n richnes s o f hidde n dimensions an d meanings . Carus' s symboli c approac h t o natur e als o derives, thoug h indirectly , fro m th e age-ol d belie f tha t natura l object s have hidde n meanings , an d ca n b e read . Th e metapho r o f th e Boo k o f Nature, a s w e hav e learne d fro m importan t recen t studies , ha s a lon g and ver y ric h history. 48 Bu t s o fa r a s w e know , thes e belief s ha d neve r been systematicall y applie d t o landscap e paintin g a s a n ar t form . Thi s was wha t Caru s did . The thir d question—ho w i s th e ide a o f beaut y represente d i n natural landscape?—i s no t a s directl y pertinen t t o th e painter' s jo b a s

m

Modern Theories of Art is th e secon d one , bu t i t shed s ligh t o n th e aim s o f landscap e painting . Generations hav e aske d wha t beaut y is , an d thei r answer s an d th e definitions the y hav e propose d hav e onl y obscure d th e problem . Caru s accepts th e irrationa l a s a n irreducibl e qualit y o f reality . Beauty , lik e life, canno t b e explained . Whil e w e d o no t kno w wha t beaut y is, w e know wha t i t does ; an d b y it s effect s w e ca n se t i t apar t fro m al l th e other component s makin g u p ou r world . Beauty , Caru s say s (p . ^6) , i s what stir s ou r perceptio n o f th e Divin e i n nature . Beauty , i t follows , i s not a n establishe d pattern ; i t i s rathe r a mod e o f experience . I t mus t necessarily b e a "triad " consistin g o f God , Nature , an d Man . Ther e ca n be n o beaut y withou t man , tha t is , without somebod y wh o experience s beauty, wh o perceive s it . Bu t ther e canno t b e beaut y withou t nature . We ca n experienc e an d sensuall y perceiv e onl y wha t i s a rea l embodi ment i n nature . A n abstraction—lik e a mathematica l point—canno t be beautiful ; "beautiful " i s only wha t appear s t o th e senses . Carus's rejectio n o f the abstract , hi s insistenc e o n th e organic , o n th e individual figure o r objec t tha t ca n b e immediatel y experienced , i s als o reflected i n hi s attitude s t o specifi c notion s o f ar t theory . Thu s h e rejects th e vie w o f beaut y entertaine d b y classicism , an d h e doe s s o precisely becaus e thi s i s a n abstrac t beauty . Willia m Hogarth , a s on e knows, presente d a "wavin g line " a s "th e lin e o f beauty," 49 an d thi s theory o f hi s wa s widel y know n an d influential . Attackin g Hogart h more fiercely tha n anybod y else , Caru s say s tha t "ther e ca n b e n o lin e beautiful i n itself , i t become s beautifu l throug h th e bod y tha t i t sur rounds (an d therefor e i t i s no t eas y t o conceiv e o f a les s felicitou s ide a than Hogarth' s concernin g th e wavin g lin e a s th e sol e lin e o f beauty) " (P- H7) . We nee d no t g o int o th e detail s o f Carus' s doctrin e o f beaut y a s such. W e shal l stic k t o landscap e painting . Th e beaut y o f nature , h e says, i s close r t o God , th e beaut y o f ar t i s close r t o ma n (pp . 62—63) . Art, w e the n understand , i s th e creatio n o f man , a s natur e i s th e creation o f God . Fro m her e i t follow s tha t ar t mediate s betwee n natur e and man . Now , i f thi s i s vali d fo r ar t i n general , i t i s particularl y tru e for landscap e painting . Landscap e paintin g open s u p ou r sense s t o th e experience o f natur e (p . 63) . T o mediat e betwee n natur e an d man , th e artist "ha s t o lear n th e languag e o f nature. " This , however , on e ca n d o 2^8

The Symbol only i n th e open , i n forest, field, an d sea , amon g mountains , rivers , and valleys. Whe n th e artist' s soul , Caru s says , i s filled wit h u the inne r meaning o f thes e differen t forms," th e "secre t divin e lif e o f natur e ha s dawned upo n him " (pp . 1^7-1^8) . This , then , i s th e ultimat e ai m o f landscape painting : t o revea l t o th e spectato r th e divin e lif e hidde n i n nature. Landscap e painting s achievin g thes e end s wil l u raise th e specta tor t o a highe r contemplatio n o f nature , [ a contemplatio n tha t is ] mystical, orphic " (p. 1^8) . 3. CASPA R DAVI D FRIEDRIC H

The popula r imag e o f th e Romanti c artis t i s tha t o f a highl y literat e man, usin g word s almos t a s frequentl y an d a s expertl y a s colors . Som e texts o n ar t writte n b y painter s i n th e Romanti c perio d ar e indee d o f great literar y densit y an d charm; they ar e precious documents , a mirror to th e min d o f th e time . O n th e whole , however , th e literar y legac y o f Romantic painter s i s rathe r slim ; notwithstandin g th e commo n image , the Romanti c painte r fel t les s nee d t o recor d hi s idea s i n writin g tha n did artist s o f som e othe r periods . Thi s i s particularl y tru e o f Caspa r David Friedrich . Nevertheless , som e isolate d remarks—they hav e com e down t o u s i n fragmentar y form—ma y she d ligh t o n ou r specifi c problem, th e meanin g o f landscape . They reveal , i n adumbrate d rathe r tha n crystallize d form , a comprehensive backgroun d o f though t an d reflection . Centra l i s th e belie f tha t every objec t i n nature, n o matter ho w humbl e an d insignificant i n itself, is capabl e o f reflectin g th e Divine . "Th e Divin e i s everywhere, " sai d Caspar Davi d Friedrich , th e great Germa n Romanti c landscap e painter , "also i n a grain o f sand , s o I depicted i t i n th e reed." 50 Th e guardian s of traditiona l concept s wer e suspicious ; they wer e no t slo w t o perceiv e that suc h a strikin g transgressio n o f th e inherite d genre s containe d a n explosive power . A s earl y a s 1809 , th e chamberlai n Basiliu s vo n Ram dohr attacke d Friedric h an d th e tren d h e represented . Thi s trend , ou r learned chamberlai n said , wit h particula r referenc e t o landscap e paint ing, "i s th e unfortunat e broo d o f th e presen t time , an d th e terribl e preview of quickly approaching barbarity. " He epitomized th e landscap e painter's par t i n thi s siniste r scenari o i n a sentenc e combinin g mora l 2£9

Modern Theories of Art disgust wit h vivi d language : "I t i s trul y a presumptio n i f landscap e painting wishe s t o cree p int o th e churc h an d craw l ont o th e altar . "5 1 But th e artist s an d writer s wh o woul d toda y b e terme d "progressive " understood th e message . The grea t poe t Heinric h vo n Kleis t ha d thi s t o say abou t Friedrich' s famou s paintin g Capuchin Friar by the Sea: "I a m convinced that , i n hi s spirit , on e coul d represen t a mile-lon g stretc h o f sand fro m th e Mar k [province] , with a [single] barberry shru b o n whic h a lonel y cro w ruffle s it s feathers , an d tha t thi s pictur e woul d hav e a truly Ossiani c . . . effect . Coul d on e pain t thi s landscap e wit h it s ow n chalk an d it s ow n water , then , I believe , on e coul d mak e foxe s an d wolves howl." 52 Caspar Davi d Friedric h himsel f stresse d th e significanc e o f introspec tion i n th e proces s o f paintin g a landscape . "Th e painter, " h e said , "should pain t no t onl y wha t h e see s i n fron t o f him , bu t als o wha t h e sees withi n himself." 53 This , on e canno t hel p feeling , i s strang e advic e from a landscap e painter . I n anothe r fragment , consistin g o f onl y tw o lines, h e addresse s th e practicin g artist : "Clos e you r bodil y eye , in orde r that yo u ma y se e you r imag e first wit h you r spiritua l eye . An d then , bring t o ligh t wha t yo u hav e see n i n th e darkness , s o tha t i t ca n affec t other [images] , brough t fro m outsid e int o th e interior." 54 Thes e sen tences, th e reade r feels , migh t hav e bee n version s o f a text b y Plotinus . What Carus , Friedrich' s frien d an d apostle , tell s u s abou t th e paint er's procedure s i s surel y motivate d b y th e desir e t o corroborat e th e artist's method . Friedrich , h e says , "neve r mad e sketches , cartoons , color outline s (Farbenentwurfe) o f hi s pictures , becaus e h e claime d (an d surely no t withou t justice ) tha t b y these auxiliar y mean s th e imaginatio n cools down . H e di d no t star t hi s paintin g unti l i t wa s vividl y presen t i n his soul , an d the n h e first rapidl y dre w o n th e neatl y stretche d canva s with chal k an d penci l th e whol e [compositio n o r image] , the n cleanl y and completel y wit h ree d pe n an d Chin a ink , an d proceede d immedi ately t o underpainting . Hi s picture s therefore , i n eac h stag e o f thei r emergence, looke d distinc t an d wel l ordered , an d alway s bea r th e impression o f hi s peculia r [character] , an d o f th e moo d i n whic h the y first appeare d t o hi s mind." 55 Whethe r o r no t Carus' s descriptio n o f how Friedric h produce d hi s landscape s i s correc t i n ever y detail—i t i s not ou r tas k t o dea l wit h thi s particula r question—i t i s a significan t 260

The Symbol theoretical statement , an d i t show s ho w powerfu l wer e Neoplatoni c trends o f though t i n earl y an d mid-nineteenth-centur y reflectio n o n landscape painting . But wha t doe s th e artis t who m Friedric h addresse s se e withi n him self? Thi s i s a n ol d question , on e tha t alread y playe d a crucia l par t i n sixteenth-century thought . Albrech t Durer , th e artis t who m Germa n Romanticism adored, 56 coine d th e phras e "secre t treasur e i n the heart " to describ e wha t th e artis t finds i n th e depth s o f hi s mind. 57 I t i s thi s accumulated "treasure, " on e assumes , tha t provide s th e artis t wit h th e images h e draw s upo n fro m within . Friedric h doe s no t explicitl y sa y what th e artis t finds i n hi s mind , bu t i t seem s tha t wha t h e mean s i s the moo d tha t ough t t o pervad e th e painte d landscape . A critica l remar k o f Friedrich' s o n th e wor k o f anothe r artis t i s suggestive. Carus , wh o publishe d thi s remark , di d no t disclos e th e identity o f tha t artist , replacin g th e nam e b y a discree t "N . N. " Th e picture Friedric h refer s t o mus t hav e bee n a trul y Romanti c work : i t represented a moonligh t scene . Bu t th e subjec t matte r alon e i s no t enough for him. "On e sees in this large moonlight pictur e b y the rightl y famous virtuos o artis t N . N . mor e tha n on e woul d wis h t o see , mor e than on e actuall y ca n se e b y moonlight." I n spite o f th e sarcasm , thi s i s not th e cor e o f Friedrich' s criticism . H e continues : "Bu t wha t th e surmising, feelin g sou l searche s for , an d wha t i t seek s t o find i n ever y picture, o f thi s on e sees her e a s little a s in all th e painting s b y N. N." 58 What "th e surmising , feelin g sou l searche s for " is, of course, th e mood , the reflectio n o f a n inner , huma n experienc e tha t i s projecte d ont o th e natural object s tha t compos e th e landscape . In his fragmentary observations , Friedric h epitomizes two point s that , though no t identical , han g closel y together . The y ar e no t new , the y form par t of th e tren d o f idea s common t o Romanticism . Bu t Friedric h gives the m a particularl y concis e an d suggestiv e formulation . First , landscape paintin g i s no t primaril y a recor d o f nature ; i t i s th e projec tion o f psychi c life . Th e historica l origi n o f landscap e painting—th e faithful recordin g o f objectiv e natura l data , closel y relate d t o cartogra phy—is altogethe r forgotten . I t i s no w th e emotion s an d mood s evoked, or suggested, b y the landscape tha t are the core of the art form. The secon d poin t i s tha t landscap e paintin g i s see n a s th e mediu m 261

Modern Theories of Art particularly suite d fo r th e manifestatio n o f moods. Th e historia n canno t help notin g tha t thi s is , in fact , a revolutionary claim . Makin g landscap e painting th e expressiv e mediu m pa r excellenc e mark s th e en d o f th e venerable traditio n o f humanis m tha t fo r centurie s dominate d though t on art . Th e humanisti c tradition , i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind , considere d the figure o f ma n a s th e principa l mediu m fo r expressin g emotion s an d moods i n art . I t i s onl y th e huma n figure tha t reflect s experiences ; th e landscape i s merel y th e background , th e spatia l fram e i n whic h th e figure i s placed . I n principle , a t least , landscap e ha s littl e t o contribut e to th e revealin g o f moods . Thi s attitud e i s completel y reverse d i n Romantic thought . I n Romanticis m i n general , an d i n th e view s o f Romantic painter s i n particular , comparativel y littl e attentio n i s paid t o the huma n figure a s a n expressiv e medium . I t i s no w th e landscape , animated b y a mysterious lif e an d miraculousl y reflectin g huma n moods , that take s th e plac e an d traditiona l functio n o f th e huma n figure. Th e bells o f a new ag e ar e tolling . 4. VISCHE R

Did th e tendenc y t o understan d landscap e paintin g a s mirroring huma n moods represen t mor e tha n th e idea s o f a fe w Romantics ? Di d suc h views eve r becom e a n influentia l tren d i n th e interpretatio n o f art ? Th e historian, lookin g bac k a t th e bewilderin g amplitud e o f opinion s tha t flourished i n th e decade s afte r Romanticism , canno t hel p wondering . An importan t witnes s i s Friedric h Theodo r Vische r (1807-1887) . H e was n o painter , no r di d h e hav e Carus' s colorfu l personality . O n th e contrary, h e wa s a typica l professor , lecturin g fo r decade s o n aesthetic s at th e Universit y o f Tubingen . I n a sense , h e ca n b e see n a s th e lin k connecting th e ages : h e wa s himsel f a belate d discipl e o f Hegel ; hi s lat e essay o n th e symbo l deepl y affecte d Ab y Warburg . Vischer' s hug e wor k on aesthetics , alarmin g bot h fo r th e bul k o f th e si x enormou s tome s and fo r thei r scholasti c for m o f presentation , wa s writte n i n th e middl e of th e nineteent h century , whe n th e autho r wa s stil l quit e young. 59 Though h e i s fa r fro m unriddlin g al l th e problem s h e se t ou t t o solve , his wor k i s a fine mirro r o f creativ e academi c thought . Wishin g t o b e comprehensive an d t o contai n al l th e art s an d thei r variation s i n hi s 262

The Symbol system, Vische r als o ha d t o dea l wit h landscap e painting . Thoug h th e subject i s clearl y margina l i n hi s thought , th e page s devote d t o i t bea r important testimon y t o th e furthe r development , eve n eventua l triumph , of th e tren d we hav e bee n outlinin g i n this section . Landscape painting , Vische r say s i n his systematic treatise , idealize s a given comple x o f natural features , belongin g t o inorgani c an d vegetativ e nature, "transformin g i t int o th e expressio n o f a surmised moo d o f th e soul" (III , p . 648) . Befor e w e com e t o th e centra l assertion—tha t landscape paintin g shoul d b e a n expressio n o f huma n moods—i t i s worth ou r whil e t o not e tha t th e autho r her e propose s a proces s o f painting landscap e tha t i s oppose d t o time-honore d worksho p proce dures. I t wa s accepte d worksho p custo m tha t th e artis t choos e individ ual motif s an d object s fro m nature , an d tha t h e the n combin e the m i n an orde r that , wit h regar d t o natur e itself , ma y b e arbitrary . This , i t was believed , i s th e secre t o f "composition " i n th e landscap e picture . But thi s procedure , th e Tubinge n professo r thought , misse s th e truth . It is in nature itsel f that w e mus t find the overal l unit y o f th e scen e an d the overal l compositio n o f th e picture . Bu t doe s no t th e painte r o f panoramas (Vedutenmaler) d o precisel y this ? And ye t Vischer , lik e Carus , excludes th e painte r of panoramas from th e communit y o f artists. Wha t distinguishes th e tru e landscap e painte r fro m th e painte r o f panorama s is that h e transform s th e depictio n o f a landscape int o the expressio n o f a mood. In 1842 , seven years after th e second, and enlarged, edition o f Carus's Briefe Uber Landschaftsmalerei wa s published , F . T . Vische r devote d a lengthy discussio n t o th e natur e o f landscap e paintin g (i n a review o f a publication o f watercolors). 60 I n this discussion, whic h i s still interestin g today, an d no t onl y a s a historica l document , Vische r treat s landscap e painting a s an expression o f huma n emotion s an d moods. I n everythin g we loo k at , he says, we se e man. This is also true for landscape painting ; beautiful natur e remind s u s o f huma n conditions . An d ye t w e sense — vaguely, bu t surely—tha t th e huma n mood s permeatin g natur e ar e only len t t o i t b y ourselves. "The prope r conten t (Inhalt) of a landscape paintin g is , therefore , a reflection o f the subjective lif e [of the huma n soul] in the domain of th e objective lif e o f nature." 61 Th e belie f tha t landscap e paintin g is , i n it s 263

Modern Theories of Art very essence , a n ar t o f expressin g mood s was , then , hel d no t onl y b y eccentric painter s an d poets , wh o too k thei r metaphor s literally , a s i t were; i t wa s als o endorse d b y th e acknowledge d aestheti c philosophe r of th e age . The essenc e o f landscap e paintin g i s complex , however , an d Vischer wa s mor e awar e o f thi s complexit y tha n wer e poet s an d painters. Landscap e paintin g expressin g huma n mood s serves , i n fact , a s a mode l o f th e wa y i n whic h aestheti c o r expressiv e object s exist . Th e landscape permeate d b y mood s i s base d o n th e interactio n o f tw o different moments : o n th e on e hand , I a m awar e tha t i t i s I wh o len d the landscap e it s seeingl y huma n characteristic s an d moods . O n th e other, i n spit e o f thi s knowledge , I—whethe r spectato r o r artist—g o on investin g mountains , trees , rivers , o r whateve r othe r object s mak e up a landscap e picture , wit h thes e characteristic s an d moods . Th e spectator i s not mistaken ; h e know s tha t th e subjec t matte r o f landscap e is nature , no t man . Thi s awareness , however , doe s no t counterac t th e expressive illusion . Vischer, hei r t o a great philosophica l tradition , coul d no t accep t th e expressiveness o f natur e i n a landscap e paintin g a s a mere projectio n o f human emotion s ont o object s that , i n themselves , ar e altogethe r alie n to anythin g no t merel y material . Hege l claime d i n hi s Aesthetics tha t i n painting, Go d "appear s a s a spiritua l an d livin g perso n wh o enter s th e Church an d gives t o ever y individua l th e possibilit y o f placin g himsel f in spiritua l communit y an d reconciliatio n wit h him." 62 Referrin g t o thi s statement b y Hegel , Vische r widen s th e rang e o f God' s appearanc e i n the arts . Fo r sculpture , Hegel' s assertio n ma y b e correct , Vische r says , but i n painting , Go d als o appear s i n nature . I n hi s Asthetik, Vische r writes: "Air , earth , water , tree , th e las t ree d stal k a t th e pon d tremble s and weave s i n ominou s shimmer , an d seem s t o wis h t o sa y somethin g significant" (III , p . p ^ ) . I t i s thi s stat e o f affair s tha t make s landscap e painting possibl e an d significant . What matter s t o th e spectato r lookin g a t a landscap e painting , however, i s onl y th e expressio n o f mood . I n a n untranslatabl e Germa n phrase, Vische r say s tha t th e painte r whos e landscap e picture s d o no t affect u s i n ou r emotion s ha s achieve d nothin g (III , p . 649). 63 Thi s painting i s like music, h e continues , "wher e ou r hear t i s full an d ye t ha s no wor d fo r it , o r a s i t i s i n lyrica l poetry , whe n on e disregard s th e 264

The Symbol specific content s an d consider s onl y th e resounding s an d weaving s tha t go throug h a poem " (III , p . 649) . Th e compariso n o f landscap e wit h music recur s i n th e lat e nineteent h an d i n th e twentiet h century . Tha t Vischer employ s thi s comparison—h e doe s s o severa l times—shows , I believe, how clos e h e cam e t o altogethe r moder n idea s about a n ar t tha t is abstrac t i n subjec t matter , ye t distinc t an d powerfu l i n expression . I t is wit h thi s vagu e adumbratio n o f a n abstrac t ar t tha t w e mus t clos e our brie f surve y o f reflection s o n landscap e paintin g a s a symboli c ar t form i n earl y nineteenth-centur y thought .

IV. C O L O R SYMBOLIS M I. TH E CONCER N WIT H COLO R The generatio n aroun d 180 0 witnesse d a reviva l o f concer n wit h th e significance an d "essence " o f color . Painter s an d poets , scholar s an d critics onc e agai n vigorousl y discusse d question s suc h a s wha t colo r actually i s an d wha t psychologica l effect s ca n b e achieve d b y correctl y using tone s an d hues . Th e problems , w e remember , ar e no t new . Th e history o f theoretica l reflectio n o n paintin g ca n b e imagine d a s a serie s of swing s o f th e pendulum : on e perio d extolle d lin e an d composition , another rathe r sa w colo r a s a majo r facto r i n th e art . In th e lat e seventeenth an d earl y eighteent h century , th e ver y foundation s o f th e Academy o f Art , particularl y i n France , wer e shake n b y th e famou s "Debat su r l e coloris " an d b y th e quarre l betwee n th e so-calle d Pous sinists an d Rubenists . These debates , as we know , wer e i n fac t a contes t between thos e wh o though t lin e an d compositio n th e suprem e valu e i n painting an d thos e wh o uphel d colo r a s th e suprem e pictoria l value. 64 Neoclassicism, th e styl e tha t acquire d a dominan t positio n i n th e ar t and aestheti c though t o f th e lat e eighteent h century , shifte d th e pen dulum onc e mor e i n th e directio n o f line . u The line s o f a Grecia n composition," sai d John Flaxma n (175^—1826) , the Englis h sculpto r an d influential draughtsman , "enchan t th e beholde r b y harmony an d perfec tion. . . . " H e praise d Michelangel o fo r th e master' s grea t "sensibilit y t o the play o f line s i n hi s picture." 65 O f colo r h e ha d nothin g t o say . 26£

Modern Theories of Art Johann Joachi m Winckelmann , wh o deserves , mor e tha n anybod y else , to b e considere d th e foundin g fathe r o f th e ideolog y o f Neoclassicism , speaks o f "nobl e outline; " i n th e contou r h e see s th e highes t valu e o f both natura l an d idea l beauty ; an d h e praise s Raphael' s Sistine Madonna for he r "grea t an d nobl e outline." 66 H e ignore s colo r i n hi s first treatise , but i n th e Sendschreiben tha t followe d h e claim s tha t th e "char m o f color " helps t o concea l th e artist' s faults. 67 A t best , then , colo r i s o f rathe r dubious value . In Romanti c though t th e pendulu m onc e agai n swun g back . Readin g what painters , critics , an d poet s o f th e earl y nineteent h centur y sai d about painting , w e witnes s a retur n t o th e hig h regar d fo r colo r an d a n intensive concer n wit h coloristi c phenomena . Th e rang e o f colo r inter ests i s striking. A systematic stud y o f color symbolism , a s conceived an d practiced i n pas t ages , mark s on e en d o f thi s range . I t i s no t fo r m e here t o g o int o th e lon g an d enthrallin g histor y o f colo r interpretation . Ever sinc e biblica l times , an d probabl y eve n earlier , peopl e hav e re flected o n wha t color s "mean, " wha t i s revealed b y them, an d ho w the y act upo n th e spectator . Color , i t ha s bee n fel t i n pas t ages , i s abl e t o express th e mos t sublim e ideas . S o intimate , i t wa s believed , i s th e connection betwee n colo r an d th e Divin e tha t som e moder n scholars , studying th e histor y o f ou r problem , hav e bee n tempte d t o spea k o f a "theology o f color." 68 Th e symboli c characte r o f colo r seem s t o b e a universal phenomenon , to o broa d t o b e discusse d i n ou r context . Eve n if we sta y withi n th e limit s o f th e Wester n world , a historical outlin e o f the "theolog y o f color " woul d deman d a heav y tome . Colo r symbolis m was no t onl y explicit ; i t i s als o implie d i n description s o f a vas t variet y of object s an d visions . T o giv e bu t on e example , i t ha s bee n notice d that th e vision s o f mystics , particularl y betwee n th e lat e Middl e Age s and th e seventeent h century , sho w a definit e leanin g towar d detaile d color descriptions , towar d conceivin g th e hue s a s manifestation s o f spiritual life. 69 Th e earl y decade s o f th e nineteent h centur y wer e ver y attentive t o thes e descriptions ; as we shal l see, painters an d poet s sense d what thes e colo r vision s mean t t o convey . The stud y o f colo r i n th e past , needles s t o say , wa s no t limite d t o religious symbolism , an d th e earl y nineteent h centur y wa s full y awar e of th e grea t variet y o f approache s t o th e chromati c phenomenon . T o 266

The Symbol indicate th e rang e o f th e interes t i n colo r evince d i n thi s period , i t will be enoug h t o mentio n th e wor k o f Miche l Eugen e Chevreu l (1786 1887), a professo r o f organi c chemistry , celebrate d i n hi s da y fo r hi s studies o f th e component s o f fat s an d th e natur e o f soap . Appointe d director o f th e dy e laboratorie s a t th e Gobeli n tapestr y factory , h e immersed himsel f i n a stud y o f colo r relations . Thoug h motivate d b y the desir e t o find a scientific clu e fo r th e prope r applicatio n o f color s i n the famou s factory , th e grea t wor k tha t h e compose d wa s essentiall y theoretical. Th e heav y volum e containin g thi s study , calle d De la hi du contraste simultane des couleurs, appeare d i n Pari s i n 1839. 70 Chevreul' s investigation, thoug h seemingl y directe d onl y towar d technica l applica tions, an d objectives , timeles s truth , provide s th e historia n wit h man y clues concernin g th e effects , psychologica l an d otherwise , tha t colo r was i n hi s tim e believe d t o hav e o n th e spectator . Hi s colo r studies , i n spite o f thei r altogethe r nonsymboli c character , ar e i n fac t linke d i n many way s t o th e spiritua l worl d o f th e Romanti c period . Attempts t o understan d color , an d t o uncove r th e meaning s allegedl y inherent i n hues , wer e the n a commo n featur e i n th e cultur e o f th e period, particularl y i n view s o n painting . I shal l tr y t o illustrat e thi s trend b y a few outstandin g examples . 2. RUNG E

With regar d t o th e us e an d meanin g o f colo r i n painting , perhap s nobody i n Romanti c though t i s a s revealin g a s th e painte r Philip p Ott o Runge (1777—1810) . On e o f th e mos t radica l Romantic s i n German , even i n European , painting , h e als o ha d a speculativ e mind , profoundl y attracted t o reflectin g o n wha t h e wa s doing i n hi s art. Th e tw o volume s of hi s Hinterlassene Schriften, 11 edite d b y hi s brother , revea l a searchin g soul an d intellec t tha t harbore d man y mor e tension s an d conflict s tha n the commonl y accepte d imag e o f Rung e woul d lea d on e t o expect . W e shall com e bac k t o som e o f th e broade r aspect s o f hi s view s o n ar t i n the nex t chapter ; her e w e shal l glance onl y briefl y a t wha t h e ha s t o sa y about th e magi c an d meanin g o f colo r i n painting . Runge's theoretica l concer n wit h colo r wa s no t short-live d o r mar ginal; i t seem s t o hav e laste d throughou t hi s life , an d i t influence d hi s 267

Modern Theories of Art spiritual worl d an d artisti c work . H e wa s acquainte d wit h th e grea t traditions o f colo r stud y an d interpretatio n o f th e past . "Wha t Albrech t Durer and , abov e all , Leonard o d a Vinc i ha d writte n abou t colo r wa s very wel l know n t o him, " s o write s th e scientis t Henric h Steffens, 72 with who m h e corresponde d o n color . Othe r author s o f pas t centurie s fascinated hi m i n thi s context , thoug h the y ha d nothin g t o d o wit h painting. Her e on e think s especiall y o f th e Germa n mysti c Jakob Boehme , whose colo r description s (o f wha t h e perceive d i n hi s visions ) see m t o have struc k Rung e particularly . Bu t Runge' s colo r studie s wer e no t limited t o th e distan t past ; i n additio n t o hi s ow n observations , h e als o looked fo r livin g sources . Hi s correspondenc e wit h Goeth e i s devote d almost exclusivel y t o th e problem s o f color . Runge trie d t o establis h a comprehensiv e colo r system , an d t o present i t i n bot h word s an d graphi c form . T o elucidat e colo r relation s for himself , an d t o presen t hi s view s clearly , h e invente d hi s "colo r sphere" (Farbenkugel), a mode l t o illustrat e th e ratio s o f colo r mixtures . He arrive d a t thi s mode l throug h year s o f empirica l study , o f patien t and carefu l observatio n o f colo r phenomen a i n natur e an d thei r treat ment i n th e workshop . Th e "colo r sphere, " s o h e wrot e t o hi s brothe r in 1808 , "i s no t a wor k o f art , bu t a mathematica l figure o f a fe w philosophical reflections. " Thi s descriptio n hit s th e tru e natur e o f hi s construction, perhap s mor e tha n h e himsel f knew . A s compared to , say , Leonardo d a Vinci' s colo r observation s (o n whic h h e relie d s o much) , Runge's comments , detaile d an d specifi c a s the y are , sometime s hav e a curiously abstract , theoretica l quality . The y lac k th e ful l saturatio n wit h observation o f natur e s o characteristi c o f th e grea t Renaissanc e artist . Coming fro m th e workshop , an d familia r wit h Renaissanc e ar t theo ries, ofte n s o clos e t o th e artist' s actua l work , Rung e intende d hi s "color sphere " t o b e o f practica l us e t o th e painter . Th e "declin e o f art," h e believed , follow s fro m th e declin e o f ou r knowledg e o f color. 73 Naturally, therefore , h e wishe d t o reviv e th e knowledg e o f colo r i n order t o improv e th e qualit y o f art . Considerin g th e complicate d ratio s and relationship s betwee n color s tha t h e describe s i n hi s theoretica l reflections, however , on e canno t hel p wonderin g wha t kin d o f profi t a n artist standin g i n fron t o f hi s canva s coul d hav e derive d fro m Runge' s explorations. Rathe r tha n a se t o f practica l prescription s mean t t o hel p 268

The Symbol the "user " directly , Runge' s deliberation s appea r a s attempt s t o under stand th e ver y foundation s o f th e painter' s metier . Here , th e moder n reader feels , i s a n artis t wh o i s profoundl y seriou s i n hi s desir e t o understand th e rea l natur e o f th e strange , evocativ e powe r h e i s han dling wit h hi s brush , an d wha t i t i s tha t make s fo r th e magi c o f color . The painter' s atelier , i n Runge' s thought , i s no t s o muc h th e ultimat e destination t o whic h h e i s tryin g t o brin g a n easil y applicabl e know how; i t i s rathe r th e poin t o f departur e o f hi s investigations , on e coul d almost say , o f hi s intellectua l an d artisti c adventures . I n th e painter' s workshop, colo r phenomen a an d colo r relation s becom e visibl e tha t i n other context s an d othe r place s ar e eithe r di m an d confused , o r remai n altogether hidde n fro m sight . Bu t wha t h e perceive s i n th e contex t o f the worksho p i s less natur e itsel f tha n wha t h e rightl y call s "philosoph ical reflections. " A somewha t similia r situatio n obtain s wit h regar d t o colo r symbol ism. Readin g hi s notes , on e incline s t o us e thi s term , an d i n fac t thi s i s often done . Ye t th e ter m "symbolic " shoul d her e b e take n wit h a grai n of salt ; i t need s qualification . Fo r Runge , colo r i n general , an d th e hue s and tone s i n a paintin g i n particular , ar e mor e tha n jus t sensua l impressions, mor e tha n mer e chromati c experienc e o f th e eye . Color , he says , i s no t "matte r lik e a ston e o r a piec e o f wood, " i t i s "i n itsel f . . . movemen t an d a natura l forc e whic h relate d t o th e for m a s a ton e relates t o th e word." 7 4 Whil e thi s compariso n ma y no t b e altogethe r clear, i t i s obviou s tha t Rung e conceive s o f colo r a s a matte r throug h which somethin g else , somethin g tha t i s nonmateria l an d nonsensual , shines forth . Color s g o beyon d themselves , the y manifest , indicate , o r evoke. O n th e othe r hand , Runge' s recognitio n o f th e symboli c charac ter o f color s doe s no t mea n tha t h e accept s th e dictionar y versio n o f symbolism. H e doe s no t associat e a certai n colo r o r ton e wit h a certai n meaning o r emotion . I n othe r words , h e doe s no t conceiv e o f colo r symbolism a s a codifie d syste m fro m whic h w e ca n pic k out , o r isolate , any particula r element . I t i s th e whole o f th e colo r syste m tha t i s symbolic, tha t indicate s a n overal l unity , somethin g tha t "hold s th e world together. " I n colo r h e finds a n analog y o f suc h a comprehensive , overall unity , a metapho r o f th e ladde r fro m th e invisibl e Go d t o th e humblest par t o f nature . 269

Modern Theories of Art 3. GOETH E

Goethe wa s no t a declare d theoreticia n o f painting . W e know , o f course, tha t h e wa s intereste d i n th e visua l arts , tha t occasionall y h e himself painte d an d mad e drawings , and tha t hi s writings o n art , thoug h consisting mainl y o f occasiona l pieces , fill a heavy tome . Bu t i n hi s grea t work o n color—an d thi s i s th e tex t w e ar e her e dealin g with—h e paid onl y scan t attentio n t o painting , a t leas t explicitly . I n spit e o f al l this, however , w e canno t overloo k Goeth e i n thi s brie f surve y o f pictorial colo r symbolis m o f th e earl y nineteent h century . I n hi s colo r studies h e sai d s o much tha t i s relevant t o ar t tha t th e studen t tryin g t o explore contemporar y view s o n paintin g ha s t o conside r som e aspect s at leas t o f th e poet' s wor k a s i f he ha d bee n writin g directl y o n art . The Theory of Colors (Farbenlehre) wa s no t a margina l produc t o f Goethe's restles s mind . H e devote d t o i t man y year s o f stud y an d writing. Th e complete d wor k fills a larg e volum e i n th e Propylae n edition, an d thi s tom e doe s no t includ e man y preparator y studies . H e himself considere d i t on e o f hi s majo r achievements , an d o n occasio n he intimate d tha t h e place d hi s scientifi c wor k o n colo r abov e hi s poetry. Mor e tha n hal f th e boo k i s devote d t o hi s ow n findings an d t o the conclusion s h e draw s fro m them ; th e res t i s give n ove r t o th e famous disput e wit h Newton . W e nee d no t her e g o int o tha t dispute ; i t has clearl y an d withou t an y qualificatio n bee n decide d i n favo r o f th e great Britis h scientist . I f on e stil l returns , tim e an d again , t o Goethe' s mistaken position , thi s i s becaus e i t provide s a classi c exampl e o f a n artist's approac h t o scienc e an d t o th e stud y o f nature . A s such , i t als o reveals a grea t dea l abou t painting , an d o f wha t wa s though t t o b e th e painter's attitud e t o color . The menta l approac h tha t Goeth e wholl y an d violentl y rejected — the approac h tha t Newto n personifie d fo r him—essentiall y consist s i n the stud y o f natura l phenomen a b y mean s o f quantification . "Mathe matics" a s a wa y o f studyin g th e diversifie d amplitud e o f natura l experience—this seeme d t o hi m a kind o f primeval fall , ' i n th e Middl e Ages," h e said , "mathematic s wa s th e chie f orga n b y mean s o f whic h men hope d t o maste r th e secret s o f nature , an d eve n now , geometr y i n certain department s o f physics , i s justly considere d o f first importance " 270

The Symbol

75

(j2i).ls Th e stud y o f variou s natura l phenomen a ha s suffered fro m thi s exaggerated mathematica l approach , Goeth e believes . Thi s i s particu larly tru e i n th e stud y o f color . Colo r doctrin e ha s suffere d fro m "having bee n mixe d u p wit h optic s generally. " Optics , Goeth e admits , is a "scienc e whic h canno t dispens e wit h mathematics.' ' Th e theor y o f color, however , "ma y b e investigate d quit e independentl y o f optics. " (725). Modern scholar s hav e note d tha t i n Newton' s Optics, a s oppose d t o his othe r grea t work , th e Principia, mathematic s i n fac t plays a rathe r minor role . Wha t Goeth e s o vehementl y reject s i n th e treatmen t o f color is , then , no t precisel y a n exaggerate d us e o f mathematic s proper . It i s th e ver y foundation s o f a n abstrac t approac h t o nature , th e "artificiality" o f th e experiment , tha t h e canno t accept . Th e revol t against th e applicatio n o f mathematic s t o th e art s i s of cours e no t new ; as w e know , i t ha d alread y give n ris e t o significan t expression s i n th e theory o f th e visua l arts . I t woul d obviousl y b e wron g t o conside r Goethe's Theory of Colors a s a lin k i n th e traditio n o f ar t theory . Never theless, on e canno t forge t tha t whe n artist s an d ar t theorist s revolte d against th e rul e o f mathematics , the y sa w i t mainl y a s a n imprisonmen t of th e imagination , an d a n impoverishmen t o f th e amplitud e o f natura l phenomena i n favo r o f som e lifeles s abstractions. 76 Goethe' s rejectio n of mathematic s i n th e treatmen t o f colo r i s no t s o fa r remove d fro m those attitude s i n forme r ages . In th e prefac e t o th e first editio n o f th e Theory of Colors, 18 1 o, Goeth e reveals a t leas t par t o f hi s sources . "W e shoul d tr y i n vain, " h e says , "to describ e a man' s character , bu t le t hi s act s b e collecte d an d a n ide a of th e characte r wil l b e presente d t o us. " And h e goe s on . "Th e color s are act s o f light ; it s activ e an d passiv e modifications. " Th e ol d Neopla tonic view , howeve r modifie d b y moder n science , i s stil l felt . Earl y i n the work , afte r makin g som e colo r observation , h e says : "A n importan t consideration suggest s itsel f here , t o whic h w e shal l frequentl y hav e occasion t o return . Colo r itsel f i s a degree o f darkness ; hence Kirche r i s perfectly right i n callin g i t lumen opacatum" (69).77 The trinit y o f light , darkness , an d colo r form s th e conten t o f Goethe' s color doctrine . Man y nineteenth - an d eve n twentieth-centur y commen tators, strongl y influence d b y th e fashionabl e admiratio n o f scientism , 271

Modern Theories of Art were incline d t o depic t Goethe' s boo k a s a regula r "scientific " enter prise. This , however , i s onl y partl y true . I n discussin g ligh t an d color , Goethe i s thinkin g o f th e art s jus t a s muc h a s o f science . u From thes e three, light , shade , an d color , w e construc t th e visibl e world , an d thus , at th e sam e time , mak e paintin g possible , a n ar t whic h ha s th e powe r of producin g o n a flat surfac e a muc h mor e perfec t visibl e worl d tha n the actua l on e ca n be, " h e say s a t th e beginnin g o f hi s introductio n t o the first editio n o f th e Theory of Colors. Wha t h e want s t o discove r i s th e common roo t o f nature and art—a n ol d wish of Neoplatonists throughou t the ages . Art, i t wa s claime d i n Neoplatoni c thought , follow s th e principle o f Nature, i t act s lik e nature. Plotinus , in hi s later treatis e o n th e Beautiful , said tha t "th e art s ar e no t t o b e slighte d o n th e groun d tha t the y creat e by imitatio n o f natura l objects ; for , t o begi n with , thes e natura l object s are themselve s imitations ; then , w e mus t recogniz e tha t the y giv e n o bare reproductio n o f th e thin g see n bu t g o bac k t o th e Reason Principles (logoi) fro m whic h Natur e itsel f derives . . . . " A littl e late r i n the sam e treatise , h e furthe r explains : "th e artis t himsel f goe s back , after all , to tha t wisdo m i n Natur e whic h i s embodied i n himself . . . ." 7 8 Goethe's wor k o n color , thoug h surel y a stud y i n natura l scienc e (a s he understoo d it) , i s a n outstandin g documen t o f th e humanisti c ap proach t o th e worl d o f visua l experience . A t th e cente r o f hi s concer n is th e questio n o f ho w ma n perceives , an d emotionall y react s to , color . He i s largel y concerne d wit h th e effec t o f color s "o n th e eye , b y mean s of whic h the y ac t o n th e mind. " Color s "ar e immediatel y associate d with th e emotion s o f th e mind. " Therefore , "W e shal l no t b e surprise d to find tha t thes e appearance s presente d singly , ar e specific , tha t i n combination the y ma y produc e a n harmonious , characteristic , ofte n even a n inharmoniou s effec t o n th e eye , . . . producin g thi s impressio n in thei r mos t genera l elementar y character , withou t relatio n t o th e nature o r for m o f th e objec t o n whos e surfac e the y ar e apparent . Hence, colo r considere d a s a n elemen t o f art , ma y b e mad e subservien t to th e highes t aesthetica l ends " (758). At th e en d o f hi s ow n observations , Goeth e come s t o reflec t o n th e subject o f colo r symbolism . Th e foundation s o f thi s symbolis m ar e found i n natur e herself , i n th e wa y w e perceiv e colors . Thi s i s als o th e 272

The Symbol foundation o f thei r us e i n art . Wha t make s i t possibl e fo r u s t o emplo y colors fo r mora l an d aestheti c end s i s "tha t ever y colo r produce s a distinct impressio n o n th e mind , and thus addresses a t once th e eye and feelings" (915). When w e deliberatel y exploi t th e distinct an d characteristic impression s tha t eac h colo r makes , w e ar e "coincidin g entirel y with nature." Such a use, that is, the application of color u in conformit y with it s effect, " s o tha t i t "would a t once expres s it s meaning," Goeth e calls th e symboli c us e o f color . Colo r symbolism , then , i s no t artificiall y —or, a s w e ofte n say , conventionally—established ; i t follow s fro m nature. I t i s no t difficul t t o conclude , eve n withou t th e autho r spellin g it out i n detail, tha t th e spectator intuitivel y grasps th e meanin g o f such colors an d colo r combinations . Colo r symbolism , i n othe r words , i s a heightened for m o f artistic expressio n (916) . Goethe i s als o awar e o f a differen t kin d o f symbolism , th e on e w e call artificia l o r conventional . H e see s i t fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f application. W e kno w that , a s Willia m Hecksche r pu t it , h e wa s "fascinated" b y emblems. 79 T o color , too , h e applie s a n emblemati c approach. Conventiona l colo r symbolism , i t follow s fro m wha t h e says , is clos e to , bu t no t identica l with , th e natura l symbolis m o f colors . Another application, h e says, "might b e called th e allegorical applicatio n [of colors] . I n thi s ther e i s mor e o f acciden t an d caprice , inasmuc h a s the meanin g o f th e sig n mus t b e first communicate d t o u s befor e w e know wha t i t i s t o signify ; wha t idea , fo r instance , i s attache d t o th e color green, whic h ha s been appropriate d t o hope? " (917). In a "Confessio n o f th e Author " tha t Goeth e appende d t o th e historical par t o f hi s Theory of Colors, he explaine d th e reason s tha t moved hi m t o hi s investigatio n o f colors , an d th e circumstance s unde r which hi s interes t i n colo r phenomen a wa s originall y aroused . Hi s familiarity wit h paintin g i s her e adduce d a s a major factor i n awakenin g his fascinatio n wit h colors . Fro m childhoo d on , h e says, 80 h e use d t o visit th e workshop s o f painters ; severa l picture s "wer e invented , com posed, th e part s . . . carefully studied " in his presence. H e himself neve r felt, h e says , th e urg e t o practic e painting, 81 bu t h e searche d "fo r law s and rules that woul d govern" that art . This reads like a faithful descrip tion of the way i n which som e humanisti c ar t theories wer e formulated . Yet bot h i n conversin g wit h livin g artist s an d i n studyin g textbooks , 273

Modern Theories of Art Goethe adds , h e coul d find n o clea r advic e an d instructio n wit h regar d to colors . Eve n wha t Gerar d d e Lairess e said , h e specificall y notes , i s modest indeed. 82 I t wa s thi s stat e o f affairs , a s h e says , tha t brough t him t o th e stud y o f color . The intimat e connectio n o f Goethe' s colo r concept s wit h th e ar t o f painting i s no t onl y a matte r o f ho w hi s interes t i n th e subjec t arose , a question tha t ca n b e answere d b y referenc e t o hi s biography ; th e connection als o persist s i n hi s full y develope d views . H e conclude s th e first, essential , par t o f hi s Theory of Colors with som e "Concludin g Observations" i n whic h h e speak s o f ar t an d th e wor k o f art . A work o f art, h e her e says , "shoul d b e th e effusio n o f genius , th e artis t shoul d evoke it s substanc e an d for m fro m hi s inmos t being , trea t hi s material s with sovereig n command , an d mak e us e o f externa l influence s onl y t o accomplish hi s powers . "8 3 Thi s i s not ho w a physicist, eve n i n Goethe' s day, woul d en d a stud y o f color . Ou r poet-scientis t wrot e fo r (o r of ) people fo r who m colo r ha d becom e a n inne r experience . Chromati c sensations strea m fro m th e dept h o f consciousness rathe r tha n fro m th e "raw" outsid e world . N o wonder , then , tha t fro m th e beginnin g the y are endowe d wit h meanin g an d emotion . 4 . LAT E ROMANTICISM : RICHTE R

Symbolism o f al l sorts , includin g th e symbolis m o f color , goe s beyon d the emotion s an d experience s o f a singl e individual ; i t contain s a n element o f broa d tradition . I n a cultur e suc h a s Romanticism , i n whic h the significanc e o f the subjectiv e an d th e individua l wa s strongly empha sized, symbolis m wa s boun d t o lea d t o a conflic t wit h th e risin g tid e o f subjectivism. Thi s unavoidabl e clas h ca n b e show n i n man y examples . In colo r symbolism , th e note s o f Richte r provid e a fine illustration . Adrian Ludwi g Richte r (1803—1884) , a lat e Romanti c artist , i s bes t known fo r hi s landscap e paintings . Suitin g th e taste s an d wishe s o f th e German lowe r middl e class , he becam e on e o f th e mos t famou s painter s of th e mid-nineteent h century . Hi s persona l literar y testimony , Lebenserinnerungen (Memorie s o f a Life) , wa s wel l know n an d widel y read . Richter ha s no t th e intellectua l an d mora l profundit y o f a Runge , le t alone th e uniqu e an d overwhelmin g personalit y o f Goethe, bu t hi s note s 274

The Symbol have th e valu e o f a popula r document . Th e problem s tha t occupie d th e minds o f artist s an d critic s i n th e 1830 s an d 1840 s ar e clearl y reflecte d in th e Lebensermnerungen. 84 Richter neve r questione d th e significanc e o f a theor y fo r th e painter . "I see, " h e sai d i n 1823 , "how importan t a healthy , clea r theor y i s fo r an artist. " Bu t theor y shoul d no t remai n somethin g external , o r self enclosed. H e therefor e continues : u But actuall y h e [th e artist ] mus t create i t [th e theory ] fo r himself , o r a t leas t h e mus t assimilat e th e views o f other s i n suc h a wa y tha t the y becom e hi s ow n property , an d are suite d t o hi s mod e o f thinkin g an d becom e par t o f it " (p . 494) . Th e problem i s obviou s here : o n th e on e hand , h e accept s th e nee d fo r a general, vali d theory ; o n th e other , h e make s i t a persona l theory , differing fro m on e artis t t o th e other . Bu t suc h a n individua l theory , suiting onl y a singl e artist , cease s t o b e a theor y a t all . In othe r words , Richter want s t o reconcil e th e genera l theor y an d th e individua l tem perament. H e doe s no t know , however , ho w th e ga p betwee n th e tw o can b e bridged . As a rule , Richte r doe s no t dea l wit h th e grea t philosophica l prob lems o f art ; t o th e degre e i n whic h the y ca n b e foun d i n hi s writte n legacy, the y ar e implie d rathe r tha n explicitl y presented . Hi s note s an d letters smel l o f th e atelier . An d i t i s precisely i n thi s respec t tha t w e se e how muc h h e i s indebte d t o tradition . Thi s i s clearl y illustrate d b y hi s views concernin g th e applicatio n o f colo r i n th e proces s o f producin g a picture. Worksho p traditio n fro m th e earl y Renaissanc e t o hig h acade mism require d a firm an d clea r outlin e befor e th e painte r touche d a brush dippe d i n color . Thi s i s als o wha t Richte r repeats : "Th e pictur e should b e draw n wit h th e pen , precisel y an d powerfully. " Th e deman d that th e outlinin g shoul d b e don e wit h a pe n (unusua l advic e indeed ) epitomizes, a s i t were , th e stric t boundarie s impose d upo n th e applica tion o f colo r tha t come s i n th e nex t stage . Bu t Richte r insert s stil l another stage . "Befor e on e put s th e han d t o th e canvas , one mus t evok e once agai n th e ide a [obviousl y o f th e colo r distribution] , i f i t ha s no t already bee n lai d dow n i n a colo r sketch . The n appl y th e color s i n broad masses " (p. 57^) . Now, al l this surel y doe s no t rea d lik e th e view s of a n artis t wh o i s freel y followin g hi s subjectiv e fanc y an d workin g under th e impac t o f a n irrationa l inspiration . VS

Modern Theories of Art In spit e o f suc h traditiona l roots , Richte r declare s tha t "th e majo r point, however , o n whic h everythin g i n a n artis t depends , i s t o for m (ausbilden) hi s genius , hi s proper , spiritua l sel f . . . " (p . 494) . Th e risin g trend o f subjectivit y i s getting th e uppe r hand . He i s awar e o f th e danger s inheren t i n wha t h e call s "subjectivity. " In 18^0 , h e note s tha t "subjectivit y i s th e genera l diseas e o f ou r time , and i t make s u s sic k ourselves. " Subjectivit y i s deviatin g fro m a n objective nor m tha t doe s no t depen d o n a n individual , o r seein g processes fro m a n individua l poin t o f view . Usin g energeti c language , he says : "Everybod y want s t o decid e th e tim e afte r hi s own , mor e o r less defective , watch , becaus e h e negate s th e sun . W e hav e onl y opin ions an d beliefs , bu t n o positive , norm-establishin g truth s . . . " (p . 601) . Awareness o f thes e danger s doe s no t rescu e him , however , fro m fasci nation wit h th e subjective . H e share s th e lat e Romantics ' belie f i n developing th e individua l personality , regardin g thi s notion a s a suprem e ideal. We sens e a n overall , profoun d conflic t i n Richter' s view s o n land scape painting , th e field t o whic h mos t o f hi s ow n pictoria l wor k belongs. Th e impressio n visibl e natur e make s o n man , h e holds , i s on e of divin e revelation ; landscape , i n hi s own words , i s a "livin g hieroglyp h of God' s law s and sacre d intentions. " The painte r depictin g a landscape , however, apparentl y canno t follo w th e divin e intention s blindly . T o avoid makin g hi s landscap e paintin g a n "artificia l allegory, " th e painte r must rel y o n hi s subjectiv e feeling s an d impressions . Nature , Richte r advises th e painter , shoul d b e perceive d "i n suc h moment s i n whic h i t moves me , an d everybody , mos t powerfull y (fo r instance , season s o f da y and year) " (pp . £ i 6-^17). Th e artist , then , interfere s wit h th e divin e law, eve n i f onl y half-consciously , b y selectin g th e moment s an d sight s that revea l mor e o r les s o f th e divine . I t goe s withou t sayin g tha t suc h a selectio n i s directed b y th e artist' s individua l personality . But th e landscap e painte r i s als o a mediator , a s i t were , o f God' s revelation t o man , an d therefor e th e intensit y o f hi s experienc e i s crucial. Addressin g a n anonymou s artist , o r perhap s himself , Richte r notes: "I n orde r fo r you r wor k t o ac t o n th e min d [o f th e spectator] , i t must emerg e unfade d (ungeschwacht) fro m th e [artist's ] mind. Therefore , invent an d wor k wit h profoun d lov e an d belief " (p . £17) . This , o f 276

The Symbol course, i s stil l anothe r versio n o f th e ol d Horatia n formula , requirin g that poet s shoul d themselve s experienc e th e emotion s the y wis h t o evoke i n th e mind s o f thei r readers . Bu t th e classica l origi n o f Richter' s demand doe s no t alte r th e fac t tha t th e artist' s emotions , th e intensit y and powe r o f hi s feelings , becom e a criterio n fo r th e efficac y o f th e landscape's expressiveness , o f it s abilit y t o revea l wha t Go d ha s hidde n in nature . When i t come s t o color , som e o f th e trend s an d conflict s I have trie d to describ e becom e eve n mor e manifest . Richte r adhere s t o traditiona l color symbolism . A s i f h e wer e statin g a n undispute d fact , h e remarks : "It i s full y clea r ho w eac h colo r separatel y produce s a specia l effec t o n the sou l (Gemiit)" (pp. £17-^18) . S o littl e doe s h e doub t th e validit y o f this assertio n tha t h e suggest s somethin g o f a dictionar y o f emotiona l color effects . "So , fo r instance , gree n i s fresh an d vivid , re d cheerfu l o r magnificent, viole t melancholi c (a s i n [th e wor k o f Caspa r David ] Friedrich), blac k mos t nation s hav e accepte d a s the colo r o f sadnes s an d of death " (p . p 8 ) . Observations o n th e meaning s an d emotiona l qualitie s attribute d t o individual color s ar e o f cours e no t new . Precisel y th e sam e comment s recur i n th e tract s compose d durin g th e Renaissanc e o n th e sam e issue.85 Wha t i s ne w i n Richte r i s th e attemp t t o discove r emotiona l characters i n colo r combinations. Wha t doe s th e relationshi p of , say , green t o re d evok e o r express ? Says Richter: "Magnificence , amplitude. " And "gree n t o blue—serene , serious , sublime " (p . £18) . I t i s possible , he obviousl y believed , no t onl y t o establis h th e meaning s o f individua l hues, bu t als o to buil d u p a comprehensive syste m o f colo r relations . A t precisely th e tim e tha t Chevreu l wa s considerin g colo r relation s o n a scientific basis , Richte r wa s lookin g a t th e sam e phenomeno n fro m th e point o f vie w o f artisti c expression . Color combination s appea r t o Richte r i n th e guis e o f expressiv e landscape motifs . "Ho w gloomy , mournfu l i s the dar k gray-gree n o f th e lime tree ; ho w seren e th e ligh t gree n o f th e beec h tree ! Wha t feeling s do th e yello w tree s i n th e fal l evoke , wit h blac k branches , withere d foliage an d grass . Ho w ghostlik e th e blac k oa k fores t i n th e winter , when th e sno w i s widel y sprea d an d hang s o n th e boughs " (p . £18) . In spit e o f thi s interlockin g o f expressiv e colo r an d expressiv e land 277

Modern Theories of Art scape motifs , Richte r i s awar e tha t colo r relation s ca n evok e emotion s even independentl y o f th e representatio n o f materia l object s o r piece s of nature . I n moder n terms , colo r composition s ca n b e expressiv e patterns o f a n abstrac t nature . Fo r th e expressiv e relationship s o f color s he use s th e phras e "th e spiritua l arrangemen t o f colors. " On e canno t help thinkin g o f Kandinsky , wh o i s th e ultimat e descendan t o f th e tradition s o forcefull y represente d b y Richter . Th e "spiritua l arrange ment o f colors, " on e i s no t surprise d t o read , "ha s muc h similarit y t o music, i n treatmen t a s wel l a s i n effect . Color s ar e sounds " (p . £i8) . The fusio n o f color s an d sounds , i t i s wel l known , i s a frequen t featur e of Romanti c though t o n art. 86 It i s also no t surprisin g tha t Richte r characterize s th e wor k an d styl e of individua l painter s b y th e emotion s th e colo r scale s the y us e evoke . "What life , wha t freshness , wha t bloomin g amplitud e Titian' s colo r excites," ou r painte r exclaims . Th e emotiona l ton e o f Poussin' s colo r i s altogether different . " A swee t sadnes s an d yearnin g com e ove r u s [whe n looking at ] Poussin' s landscapes . Thes e ar e gray , blended , somewha t dark colors " (p . g 18). What follow s fro m al l thi s i s obvious : th e rang e o f colo r symbolis m becomes broader , i t i s applie d t o mor e an d mor e aspect s o f natur e an d art; experience s o f natur e an d work s o f ar t ar e graspe d o n th e basi s o f what th e color s sa y o r intimat e o r evoke . A t th e sam e time , however , the characte r o f colo r symbolis m change s almos t imperceptibly : instea d of distinct , firmly codifie d colo r "meanings, " w e ar e no w face d wit h fascinating bu t somewha t indistinc t colo r evocations . Conventiona l colo r symbolism become s mor e o f a psychologica l experience . Th e ag e o f subjectivity ha s begun .

NOTES 1. Se e above , pp . 9 7 ff. 2. Se e Winckelmann's Werke, herausgegeben vo n C . L . Fernow , (Dresden , 1808) , I , p . 56. "Tha t painte r wh o think s furthe r tha n hi s palett e wishe s t o hav e a learne d stock t o whic h h e ca n turn t o tak e importan t signs , mad e sensual , o f thing s tha t are no t sensual . A complete wor k o f thi s kin d doe s no t ye t exist . . . . "

278

The Symbol 3. Th e Versuch i s printe d i n Wickelmann's Werke, II (Dresden , 1808) , pp . 429-762 . Figures i n parentheses, given i n th e text , refe r t o th e pag e number s o f this edition . So far as I know, ther e i s n o Englis h translatio n o f th e Versuch. 4. Winckelman n expresse d thes e view s frequently . See , fo r instance , Wickelmann's Werke, I , pp. 5 6 ff , 5 9 ff . 5. Se e Winckelmann's Werke, I , pp. 5 3 ff . 6. B . A. Sorensen , Symbol una* Symbolismus in den asthetischen Theorien des 18. Jahrhunderts und der deutschen Romantik (Copenhagen , 1963) . 7. Fo r Cesar e Rip a an d Pieri o Valeriano , se e Theories of Art, pp. 26 3 ff . Jea n Baptist e Boudard wa s a professo r a t th e Roya l Academ y i n Parma . Hi s majo r work , lconologie tiree de divers auteurs. Ouvrage utile aux gens de lettres, aux poetes, aux artistes, et generalement a tous les amateurs des beaux-arts (Vienna, 1766) , wa s bot h learne d and wel l illustrated , an d quickl y achieve d great popularity . Cf . Ludwi g Volkmann , Bilderschriften der Renaissance (Leipzig , 1923) , pp . 106-108 . 8. Se e above , pp . 11 9 ff . 9. Th e majo r document s o f th e disput e wer e collecte d b y Erns t Howal d i n hi s Der Streit urn Creuzers Symbolik (Tubingen , 1926) . 10. Th e referenc e t o th e Symbolik, i n th e first editon , ar e fro m thi s poin t o n give n i n parentheses i n th e text ; Roma n numeral s indicat e th e volume . Fo r Creuzer' s views, cf . Marc-Matthie u Munch , La 'Symbolique' de Friedrich Creuzer (Association des publications pres des universites de Strasbourg, fasc . 155) , (Paris , n . d.) . 11. Becaus e Creuzer' s translatio n i s no t precisel y literal , I hav e adapte d hi s wordin g rather tha n mak e a correc t translatio n o f Demetrios . Fo r th e origina l text , se e Demetrios, On Style, # # 99-100 . 12. Th e ter m "iconism " (Ikonismus) i s on e Creuze r himsel f employ s (I , p . 81) . I a m not awar e o f earlie r occurences . Creuze r himsel f doe s no t see m t o emplo y i t agai n (but I may b e mistaken) . 13. B y Arnaldo Momigliano , i n u Friedrich Creuze r an d Gree k Historiography, "Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9 (1946) : 152-163 , reprinte d i n th e author' s Studies in Historiography (Ne w York , 1966) , pp . 75-90 . 14. I n his Idee und Probe alter Symbolik (1806) . Thi s wor k wa s no t availabl e t o m e whil e writing th e presen t chapter . 15. Plotinus , The Enneads, translate d b y S . MacKenn a (London , n . d.) , p . 427 . An d se e Theories of Art, p . 35 . 16. Se e Friedric h Engels , The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Ne w York, 1964) , p . 7 . Fo r informatio n o n th e attitude s o f th e Germa n right , particu larly Naz i ideologists , t o Bachofen , se e Lionel l Gossman , "Orpheu s philologus : Bachofen versu s Mommse n o n th e Stud y o f Antiquity, " i n Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 73 , par t 5 (1983), p . 6 . 17. Se e Campbell' s introductio n t o Myth, Religion, and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J. J. Bachofen (Princeton , 1967) , p . xxv . Thi s seem s t o b e th e onl y editio n o f ( a selection) o f Bachofen' s writing s i n English . Hereafte r i t wil l b e cite d a s Myth, Religion. 18. Myth, Religion, pp . 1 1 f .

279

Modern Theories of Art 19. Translate d fro m C . A . Bernoulli , Urreligion und antike Symbole: Systematische Auswahl aus Bachofens Werken (Leipzig , 1926) , I , p . 274 . Bachofe n wrot e thi s passag e i n th e report o f hi s journe y t o Greec e (1851) . Se e als o J . J . Bachofen , Mutterrecht und Urreligion, ed . Han s G . Kippenber g (Stuttgart , 1984) , p . xiv . 20. Myth, Religion, p . 22 . 21. Ibid. , p . 59 . 22. Ibid. , p . 56 . Bachofe n probabl y ha s Plutarch' s De hide et hiride, Chapter s 4 9 - 6 4 , in mind . Tha t Bachofe n shoul d hav e fel t a special attractio n t o Plutarch , a write r of th e lat e first an d earl y secon d centur y A.D. , wh o combine d grea t interes t i n Oriental (Egyptian ) mysterie s wit h hi s Gree k culture , i s i n itsel f remarkable , an d deserves furthe r study . Cf . Kippenberg' s introductio n t o Mutterrecht und Urreligion,

pp. xv i ff .

23. Myth, Religion, p . 56 . 24. B y C . A . Bernoulli , i n J'ohann Jakob Bachofen ah Religionsforscher (Leipzig , 1924) , p . 73. 25. Myth, Religion, p . 51 . 26. Ibid. , pp . 49-50 . 27. Theories of Art, pp . 28 1 f. , 343 . 28. Lessin g suggeste d thi s ide a severa l times . See , fo r example , Laocoon, Chapter s I I and XVII . An d ci. als o Davi d E . Wellbery , Lessing's Laocoon: Semiotics and Aesthetics in the Age of Reason (Cambridge , 1984) , p . 121 . 29. Se e The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Frederick von Schlegel, translate d b y E . J. Millington (London , 1860) , pp . 6 6 ff . 30. F . W . F . v . Schelling , Schriften zur Philosophie der Kunst, ed . O . Weis s (Leipzig , 1911), p . 192 . I am no t awar e o f a n Englis h translation . 31. Salomo n Gessner , Brief iiber die Landschaftsmalerey an Herrn Fuesslin (1770) , reprinte d in Salomo n Gessner , Schriften, II I (Zurich , 1795) , pp . 291-328 . Fo r Cennin o CenninFs advice , se e hi s The Craftman's Handbook: 11 libro dell'arte, translated b y D . V. Thompson , Jr . (Ne w York , 1933) , Chapte r 88 . An d cf . Theories of Art, pp . 11 8

ff.

32. Male r Muller , Idyllen (Leipzig, 1914) , pp . 9 ff . An d d. H . vo n Einem , Deutsche Malerei des Klassizismus und der Romantik: 1760 bis 1840 (Munich , 1978) , p . 41 . 33. Se e Johan n Geor g Sulzer , Allgemeine Theorie der schonen Kiinste (Leipzig, 1793) , pp . 145-154. 34. Th e lon g article , "Ube r di e Landschaftsmalerei, " was originall y publishe d i n Der teutsche Merkur (1803) , pp . 527-55 7 an d 594-640 . I t i s reprinte d i n Romische Studien, II (Zurich, 1806) , pp . 11-130 . I am quotin g fro m th e reprinte d version . 35. "Ube r di e Landschaftsmalerei, " p . 95 . 36. Se e vo n Einem , Deutsche Malerei, p . 61 . 37. "Ube r di e Landschaftsmalerei, " pp . 2 4 ff . 38. Cf . Rudol f Zeitler , Klassizismus und Utopie (Figura, 5) (Stockholm , 1954) , pp . 3 5 ff . And se e als o Marjori e H . Nicolson , Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite (Ithaca, N.Y. , 1959) , fo r th e genera l background. 28o

The Symbol 39. "Ube r di e Landschaftsmalerei, " i n "Philip p Hackert : Biographisch e Skizze, " i n Goethe's Werke, Sophienausgabe , Par t I , Vol . 46 , pp . 356-375 . A first editio n appeared i n a volume o f Goethe' s work s i n Tubingen, 1811 . 40. Car l Grass , "Einig e Bemerkunge n iibe r di e Landschaftsmalerei, " Morgenblatt fur gebildete Stande, December 22/2 3 (1809) , pp . 1217-1218 , 1223-1224 . 41. C . G . Cams , Lebenserinnerungen und Denkwiirdigkeiten, (Leipzig , 1865) , I , p . 70 . S o far a s I know , ther e i s n o extensiv e discussio n o f Caru s a s a theoreticia n o f art . Hans Kern , Die Philosophie des Carl Gustav Carus (Celle , 1926) , doe s no t eve n mention th e author' s concer n wit h ar t theory . E . Wasche , Carl Gustav Carus und die romantische Weltanschauung (Dusseldorf , 1933) , pp . 101-127 , discusse s th e theory o f landscape , bu t i s no t ver y usefu l fo r ou r purpose . Th e dissertatio n b y B . Kirchner, Carl Gustav Carus: seine 'poetische Wissenschaft' und seine Kunsttheorie, sein Verhdltnis zu Goethe und seine Bedeutung fur die Literaturwissenschaft (Bonn , 1962) , pp . 36-43, als o refer s t o hi s discussio n o f landscap e painting , bu t doe s s o fro m th e point o f vie w o f th e literar y historian . 42. N . Pevsner , Academies of Art: Past and Present (Cambridge , 1940) , p . 118 . 43. C . G . Carus , Briefe uber Landschaftsmalerei (Heidelberg , 1972 , a reprint o f th e secon d edition, 1835) , pp . 3 7 ff . Al l pag e numbers , given i n parenthese s i n th e text , refe r to thi s edition . 44. See , fo r example , M . H . Abrams , The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (London, Oxford , Ne w York , 1971) , pp . 218-225 ; an d Thoma s McFarland, Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin (Princeton, 1981) , pp . 34-43 . 45. Se e Kern , Die Philosophie des Carl Gustav Carus, pp . 3 7 ff . 46. T o b e sure , tha t meanin g coul d b e complex , i t coul d hav e differen t shades ; a certain motif , i n combinatio n wit h others , coul d assum e a meaning quit e differen t from wha t i t woul d hav e i f i t ha d bee n viewe d i n isolation . Bu t al l thes e qualifications, on e shoul d bea r i n mind , d o no t abrogat e th e basi c patter n o f mythographic thought , namely , tha t a given figure ha s a certain meaning . 47. Se e C . G . Carus , Die Symbolik der menschlichen Gestalt (Leipzig, 1853) . 48. See , fo r instance , Erns t Rober t Curtius , European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (New York , 1953) , pp . 302-347 ; an d Han s Blumenberg , Die Lesbarkeit der Welt (Frankfurt a . M. , 1981) . 49. Particularl y i n hi s The Analysis of Beauty. I here quot e fro m Anecdotes of the celebrated William Hogarth, ed. Joh n Nichol s (London , 1813) , i n whic h The Analysis of Beauty is reprinted o n pp . 101—262 . 50. A s quote d i n L . Forster , Biographische und literarische Skizzen aus dem Leben und der Zeit Karl Forsters (Dresden , 1846) , pp . 15 6 f . An d se e als o vo n Einem , Deutsche Malerei, pp . 9 2 ff . 51. Quote d fro m H . vo n Einem , "Di e Symbollandschaf t de r deutsche n Romantik, " i n the author' s Stil und Uberlieferung: Aufsa'tze zur Kunstgeschichte des Abendlandes (Dus seldorf, 1971) , p . 210 . 52. Quote d i n H . Borsch-Supan , Deutsche Romantik (Munich , 1972) , p . 76 ; and H . vo n Einem, Deutsche Malerei, p . 92 . 53. Se e Friedrich der Landschaftsmaler: Zu seinem Geddchtnis (Dresden , 1841) . Thi s littl e

28l

Modern Theories of Art pamphlet, edite d an d partl y writte n b y Cams , als o contain s som e fragment s o f Friedrich's literar y observations . Fo r th e sentenc e quoted , se e p . 11 . 54. Fhedrich der Landschaftsmaler, p . 19 . 55. Ibid. , p . 24 . 56. Se e below , pp . 29 6 ff . 57. Se e Theories of Art, p . 218 . 58. Friedrich der Landschaftsmaler, p . 18 . 59. Se e F . T . Vischer , Asthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schonen, zum Gebrauch von Vorlesungen (Stuttgart, 1847-1857 ; a secon d editio n appeare d i n 1922-1923) . Reference s t o the first editio n wil l b e give n i n th e text , i n parentheses ; Roma n numeral s refe r to th e volume . 60. Se e F . T . Vischer , Kritische Gange (Tubingen, 1844) , I , pp . 207-287 . Se e particu larly pp . 222-224 . 61. Vischer , Kritische Gange, I, p . 223 . 62. Se e Hegel , Vorlesungen Uber Aesthetik (Berlin , 1837) , III , p . 10 ; an d th e Englis h translation (Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts, trans . T . M . Kno x [Oxford , 1975]) , p . 798. Se e als o Aesthetik, II, p. 258 , an d Aesthetics, p. 625 . 63. Th e origina l tex t reads : "Ei n Maler , desse n Landschaf t nich t s o au f un s wirkt , dass un s irgendwi e zu Mute wird, ha t nicht s geleistet. " 64. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 35 5 ff . 65. Joh n Flaxman , Lectures on Sculpture (London , 1892) , Lectur e VI , esp . pp . 15 0 ff . Excerpts ar e no w easil y accessibl e i n Elizabet h G . Holt , From the Classicists to the Impressionists: A Documentary History of Art and Architecture in the Nineteenth Century (Garden City , N.Y. , 1966) , pp . 2 2 ff . Th e sentence s quote d ar e o n p . 25 . 66. Sai d i n hi s first work , Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works of Art in Painting and Sculpture. I quot e fro m Winckelmann's Werke, ed. C . L . Ferno w (Dresden , 1808) , I , pp. 23 , 24 , 38 . 67. Th e ful l titl e read s "Sendschreibe n ube r di e Gedanken : Vo n de r Nachahmun g de r griechischen Werk e i n de r Malere y un d Bildhauerkunst, " a s i t appear s i n Winckelmann's Werke, I, pp . 63—116 . Fo r th e sentenc e quoted , se e p . 97 . 68. Th e literatur e o n thi s subjec t i s wide , bu t ha s no t bee n properl y presente d fo r handy use . Bu t se e th e recen t volume , edite d b y A . Portman n an d R . Ritsema , The Realm of Colour - Eranos 41-1972 (Leiden , 1974) . 69. Se e particularl y th e articl e b y Erns t Benz , "Di e Farb e i m Erlebnisbereic h de r christlichen Vision, " Eranos 41-1972, pp . 265-323 . 70. Th e first Englis h translation , The Principle of Harmony and Contrast of Colours and their Applications to Art, wa s publishe d i n 1854 . Ther e wer e tw o translation s i n th e nineteenth century , eac h goin g int o thre e editions . 71. Philip p Ott o Runge , Hinterlassene Schriften, (Hamburg , 1840-1841) . A facsimil e edition wa s publishe d i n Gottinge n i n 1965 . 72. H . Steffens , Was ich erlebte (Munich, 1956) , p . 213 . Th e origina l editio n appeare d in Breslau , 1844 , i n te n volumes . 73. Se e th e chapte r o n thi s subjec t i n Rudol f M . Bisanz , German Romanticism and Philipp

282

The Symbol Otto Kunge: A Study in Nineteenth Century Art Theory and Iconography (D e Kalb , 111., 1970), pp . 86-96 . 74. Runge , Hinterlassene Schriften, I, p . 80 , fro m a lette r writte n Decembe r 22 , 1807 . And se e Bisanz , pp . 6 8 ff . 75. Goethe's Theory of Colours, translate d fro m th e Germa n wit h note s b y Charle s Loc k Eastlake (London , 1840) . Th e figure s i n parenthese s give n i n th e tex t ar e th e numbers o f th e paragraphs . Th e paragraph s ar e numbere d i n bot h th e Germa n original an d th e Englis h translation . 76. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 29 1 ff. , esp . p . 298 . 77. Th e Gree k ter m tha t Goeth e use d i s a Plotinia n concept , wel l know n i n th e Neoplatonic tradition . Athanasiu s Kirche r (1601/2-1680) , Jesuit , scientist , an d the mos t famou s Egyptologis t o f hi s century , claimed—i n Neoplatoni c vein — that th e Egyptian s wer e th e sourc e o f Plato' s philosoph y an d th e wisdo m o f Pythagoras. Goeth e i s referring t o Kircher' s Ars magna lucis et umbrae (Rome , 1646) , in which h e describe d th e color s a s "the childre n o f ligh t an d shadow." This wor k by Kirche r i s permeate d b y traditiona l Neoplatoni c thought . 78. Se e Enneads V,8, l an d V,8,5 . I a m quotin g th e Englis h versio n o f MacKenna . Se e Plotinus: The Enneads (London , n . d.) , pp . 42 2 ff. , 426 . 79. Se e Willia m S . Heckscher , "Goeth e i m Bann e de r Sinnbilder : Ei n Beitra g zu r Emblematik," i n Emblem und Emblematikrezeption, ed . S . Penkar t (Darmstadt , 1978) , pp. 355-385 . 80. I am here usin g th e Berli n edition , 1879 , of Goethe's Werke, Vol . 3 4 Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften, III , pp. 25 9 ff , esp . p . 261 . 81. W e know , however , tha t h e di d practic e painting , an d eve n arrive d a t som e proficiency i n it . Fo r Goethe' s familiarit y with , an d attitud e to , th e visua l arts , se e Herbert vo n Einem , Goethe-Studien (Munich , 1972) . 82. Fo r Gerar d d e Lairesse , se e above , pp . 5 7 ff . 83. Goethe's Theory of Colour, p . 264 . 84. Se e Ludwi g Richter , Lebenserinnerungen eines deutschen Malers: Selbstbiographie nach Tagesbuchnachschriften und Briefen (Leipzig , 1909) . I shal l quot e fro m thi s edition , giving th e pag e number s i n th e tex t (i n parentheses) . Th e cop y I us e i s a reprin t of th e "Volksausgab e de s Durerbundes, " tha t is , o f a popula r series . Th e wor k originally appeare d i n 1884 , an d tw o year s later , i n 1886 , ther e wa s alread y a fourth edition . 85. Fo r some o f th e literature , ancien t an d modern , o n thi s subject , se e m y forthcom ing stud y "Renaissanc e Colo r Conventions : Liturgy , Humanism , Workshops. " Originally a lecture a t a symposium, an d wil l b e included—a s a n article—i n th e volume tha t resulte d fro m tha t symposiu m (hel d i n Philadelphia , Pa.) . 86. Cf . Edwar d Lockspeiser , Music and Painting: A Study in Comparative Ideas from Turner to Schoenberg (Ne w York , 1973) , esp . Chapte r I .

283

s The Artis t

The centur y betwee n 17^ 0 and 18^0 , so we ar e accustome d t o believing , opened u p a ne w perio d i n Wester n history . I n th e domai n o f th e present study—attitude s to , an d th e interpretatio n of , th e visua l art s — t h e Enlightenmen t an d Romanticism , thos e comple x an d multifa ceted historica l movements , indee d marke d th e emergenc e o f a ne w stage. The revolutio n brough t abou t b y thes e movement s affecte d ever y corner an d aspec t o f th e philosoph y o f ar t an d o f ar t criticism . I t ma y seem obvious , ye t i t i s no t superfluou s t o emphasiz e agai n tha t i n n o respect wa s th e upheava l mor e radica l tha n i n it s effec t o n view s o f th e artist. A ne w imag e emerged , fa r fro m simpl e o r unequivocal , ye t powerful an d enduring ; i t i s still wit h u s today . The "imag e o f the artist, " th e conceptua l labe l use d her e t o designat e a broa d an d unwieldl y comple x o f attitudes , beliefs , an d ideas , shoul d not b e take n i n an y narrowl y limite d sense . Wha t w e ar e her e con cerned wit h i s not onl y th e artist' s socia l an d lega l position—a n aspec t that ha s attracte d th e attentio n o f student s dealin g wit h lat e medieva l and Renaissanc e art . I n th e perio d o f Enlightenmen t an d Romanticism , the "imag e o f th e artist " affect s other , an d broader , fields. I t largel y concerns th e artis t a s a psychological type , an d hi s relatio n t o hi s work .

284

The Artist I. P H I L O S O P H E R S AN D POET S I. WILLIA M DUF F

Fascination wit h th e artist' s creativit y an d productiv e imaginatio n wa s of cours e no t a n eighteenth-centur y invention . Ye t i n th e secon d hal f o f that centur y th e proble m acquire d a significanc e i t ha d hardl y enjoye d in previou s periods , becomin g th e centra l issu e i n th e aestheti c reflec tions o f Romanticism . Thi s intensiv e concer n wit h th e artist' s creativ e nature di d no t emerg e first i n th e theor y o f th e visua l arts . Eve n whe n a painte r o r sculpto r wa s th e subjec t o f discussion , th e questio n o f ho w an artis t produce d a wor k o f ar t ou t o f shapeles s materia l di d no t arise , at thi s period , i n th e workshop s o r academie s o f art , an d wa s no t pose d by a n artis t holdin g a brus h o r a chisel . I n th e eighteent h centur y th e subject wa s mainl y th e provinc e o f philosopher s an d teacher s o f poetry , and fro m ther e wa s brough t t o bea r o n th e painter' s an d sculptor' s work. A n interestin g an d significant documen t o f thi s tur n o f min d i n eighteenth-century Europ e i s Willia m Duff' s Essay on Original Genius (1767). Willia m Duf f (17 3 2-181^) wa s a Presbyteria n minister , prolifi c writer, an d a n importan t representativ e o f th e Scottis h schoo l o f philo sophical thought . Th e Essay surely represent s hi s principa l clai m t o fame. That Willai m Duf f wa s deepl y roote d i n th e classica l traditio n goe s without sayin g (the author s h e mos t frequentl y quote s ar e Aristotl e an d Quintilian). I t shoul d b e added , however , tha t h e wa s als o seriousl y concerned wit h th e discussion s o f problem s i n psycholog y tha t wer e going o n i n hi s day . I n fact , i t i s th e combinatio n o f hi s tw o majo r sources, classica l learnin g an d "contemporary " psychologica l discussion , that forme d hi s particula r approac h t o th e arts . H e ha d n o immediat e connection o r particula r familiarit y wit h th e art s themselves . Wha t occupied hi s mind wa s th e genera l proble m o f creativity an d genius ; th e arts wer e onl y th e field wher e thi s proble m coul d bes t b e studied . "The empir e o f genius, " Willia m Duf f believed , "i s unbounded " (91),1 bu t hi s majo r concer n wa s wit h poetry . "Poetry , o f al l th e libera l arts," h e assure s hi s readers , "afford s th e mos t extensiv e scop e fo r th e display o f Geniu s trul y Original " (124—2$) . Ye t h e als o consider s som e 2Ss

Modern Theories of Art of th e othe r arts . "Thoug h i t i s Poetr y tha t afford s th e amples t scop e for th e exertio n o f th e power s o f Imagination, " h e say s i n a late r chapter, " a ver y hig h degre e o f thi s qualit y ma y b e discovere d i n som e of th e othe r fine arts " (188) . Th e notio n o f "art, " i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind, i s stil l fairl y traditiona l i n hi s usage ; i t encompasse s philosophy , science, an d als o som e o f th e mechanica l arts . Yet , differin g fro m th e mainstream o f th e terminolog y accepte d i n th e seventeent h an d eight eenth centuries , i t als o include s par t o f th e "fin e arts. " O f these , h e says, "th e ar t o f Paintin g claim s ou r first attention " (189) . Painting , then, i s als o a recognize d field fo r th e displa y o f genius , imagination , and th e creativ e faculties . Although th e artist' s creativit y i s th e centra l issu e o f Duff' s thought , he choose s a psychologica l ter m t o describ e hi s theme , speakin g mainl y of imagination . u That Imaginatio n i s th e qualit y o f al l other s mos t essentially requisit e t o th e existenc e o f Geniu s wil l universall y b e acknowledged," h e say s a t th e beginnin g o f th e treatis e (6) . Bu t wha t precisely i s imagination , particularl y wit h regar d t o th e artist ? Ou r author's answer , thoug h clearl y indicatin g a directio n o f thought , i s no t without a certai n ambiguity . "Imaginatio n i s tha t facult y whereb y th e mind no t onl y reflect s o n it s ow n operations , bu t whic h assemble s th e various idea s conveye d t o th e understandin g b y th e cana l o f sensation , and treasure d u p i n th e repositor y o f memory, compoundin g o r disjoin ing the m a t pleasure ; an d which , b y it s plasti c powe r o f inventin g ne w associations o f ideas , an d o f combinin g the m wit h infinit e variety , i s enabled t o presen t a creatio n o f it s own , an d t o exhibi t scene s an d objects whic h neve r existe d i n nature " (6—7) . Imagination , w e under stand, doe s tw o things . O n th e on e hand , i t assemble s image s (wha t Duff, perhap s influence d b y th e Gree k o f Plato , calls "ideas" ) an d store s them i n a repository , read y fo r use . Th e historia n o f ar t theor y wil l remember Durer' s "assemble d hidde n treasur e i n th e heart," 2 a de scription o f wha t Duf f call s th e "repository. " O n th e othe r hand , imagination als o produce s th e radicall y new , i t conjure s u p "scene s an d objects whic h neve r existe d i n nature. " Th e ide a o f a repository , an d o f reviving stored-u p image s i n differen t combinations , i s on e tha t i s ver y much i n accor d wit h th e associationis t psycholog y o f Duff' s tim e an d school.3 Th e ide a o f creatin g th e radicall y new , thoug h certainl y no t 286

The Artist new i n itself , i s the mor e importan t par t o f Duff' s theory , an d i t i s the part tha t ha d th e greates t impac t o n theorie s o f ar t i n th e eighteent h and nineteent h centuries . Genius, t o Duff , mean s creativity , whic h i s synonymous wit h "origi nal." B y "th e wor d Origina l whe n applie d t o Genius , w e mea n tha t native an d radica l powe r whic h th e min d possesses , o f discoverin g something ne w and uncommon i n every subjec t o n which i t employs its faculties" (86) . Ever y genius , then , i s original . However , "origina l ge nius" refer s onl y t o th e degre e o f th e creativ e faculty : "th e wor d Original, considere d i n connectio n wit h Genius , indicate s th e Degree , not th e Kin d o f thi s accomplishment , an d . . . i t alway s denote s it s highest degree " (87). Duff use s ye t anothe r ter m t o denot e th e inventing , mold-shapin g function o f th e genius' s fantasy : h e speak s o f "plastic " imagination . Thus, " a vigorous , extensive , an d plasti c imaginatio n i s th e principa l qualification o f genius, " h e say s ($8) . "Extensive " her e probabl y refer s to th e rang e o f image s assemble d i n th e repositor y o f memory , whil e the adjectiv e "plastic, " i t seems , indicate s th e ver y abilit y t o invent , t o create a mol d wher e originall y ther e wa s none . Th e latte r i s a specifi c quality o f th e genius' s mind , an d i t shoul d no t b e confuse d wit h imagination a s such . Genius , Duf f says , "i s characterize d b y a copiou s and plastic , a s wel l a s b y a vivi d an d extensiv e Imagination. " An d a s if he fel t tha t thes e term s wer e no t self-explanatory , h e adds : "b y whic h means i t [the imagination] i s especially qualifie d t o invent an d create, or to conceiv e an d describ e i n th e mos t livel y manne r th e object s i t contemplates" (47) . The inventiv e imagination , th e abilit y t o creat e a n image ou t o f nothing, i s the ultimate criterio n o f genius. In poetry , a s w e alread y know , th e imaginatio n o f geniu s "i s alto gether absolut e an d unconfined " (12^) . Wha t ar e th e imagination' s power an d significanc e i n th e visua l arts ? Duf f consider s paintin g only . In a length y footnote , amountin g t o a n independen t littl e articl e (19 1 — 198), h e compare s th e imaginatio n o f th e poe t an d o f th e painter . Th e tradition o f ut pictura poesis (as in painting, so in poetry), seeing literatur e and th e visual art s a s close parallels , was still a live, unquestioned realit y in th e mid-eighteent h century . Th e moder n reade r is , therefore , no t surprised t o find Duf f immediatel y proclaimin g tha t a very clos e affinit y 287

Modern Theories of Art prevails betwee n th e poe t an d th e painter . Bu t ther e ar e als o differ ences, an d i n discussin g ho w a poe t differ s fro m a painte r ou r autho r foreshadows som e moder n trend s o f thought , ' i n mos t respects, " w e are told , poetr y an d paintin g ar e similar . I t i s th e tas k o f bot h t o represent "huma n characters , passions , an d events. " T o d o this , bot h the poe t an d th e painte r emplo y imagination . Bu t the y us e i t t o a different exten t an d i n a different manner . Let u s first loo k a t th e exten t t o whic h th e imaginatio n i s used . " A greater compas s o f Fanc y i s require d i n th e Poe t tha n i n th e Painter. " The reaso n fo r thi s i s th e differen t wa y i n whic h th e tw o artist s shap e their works . Th e poet , Duf f claims , mus t encompas s a greate r amoun t of realit y tha n th e painter . Th e objec t o f hi s descriptio n doe s no t stan d still; wha t h e wishe s t o sho w u s ar e "fleetin g objects, " ever-changin g situations. I t i s from thes e object s an d configuration s tha t th e poe t mus t "catch th e evanescen t form. " Th e painter , o n th e othe r hand , i s no t involved i n a n unceasin g struggl e wit h th e vanishin g o f hi s objects , h e does no t hav e t o extrac t a for m fro m fleeting, disappearin g sight s an d events. H e i s rather "ingrosse d b y tha t singl e idea, " whateve r i t ma y be , which h e intend s t o expres s i n hi s picture . Duf f i s referrin g here , o f course, t o th e well-know n ide a tha t th e structur e o f poetr y follow s th e sequence o f time , wherea s th e structur e o f paintin g i s base d o n th e simultaneity characteristi c o f spatia l perception . Thi s idea , needles s t o say, ha d frequentl y appeare d i n th e precedin g centuries , an d i t attaine d crucial significanc e i n th e decade s tha t followe d An Essay on Original Genius.4 Duf f approache s thi s familia r topi c i n a rather unusua l way . Th e temporality o f poetr y a s wel l a s th e simultaneit y o f paintin g wer e usually take n t o refe r t o th e mode s i n whic h a wor k i n th e respectiv e art i s experienced . W e read the poe m wor d after word, whil e w e see all the part s o f th e pictur e a t th e same instant. Poe m an d pictur e exist , a s it were , i n differen t dimensions . Wha t Duf f say s i s something different . He doe s no t dea l wit h th e mod e o f th e work' s existence ; h e ask s rathe r how i t come s int o being . It i s no t th e whol e ar t o f painting , however , t o whic h Duf f accord s the gif t o f imagination . Th e ide a o f a hierarch y o f pictoria l genres , on e may b e surprise d t o see , proves o f endurin g vitality . Ther e are , we read , "inferior department s i n th e ar t o f Painting, " t o b e omitte d fro m th e 288

The Artist discussion a s "foreig n t o ou r purpose " (18 9 f.) . Th e nobles t par t o f painting is , no t surprisingly , histor y painting , an d i t i s onl y ther e tha t the distinction s concernin g "origina l genius " apply. The y "wil l exclud e all portrait s i n Painting , howeve r excellent, " the y wil l als o exclud e "many descriptiv e piece s i n poetry , thoug h copie d fro m nature , fro m any pretension s t o originality , strictl y considered " (190) . Th e histor y painter, a s wel l a s th e epi c poet , tak e thei r them e fro m "a n authenti c or traditiona l relatio n o f som e importan t event, " tha t is , fro m tradi tional lore , bu t wha t tradito n provide s the m wit h i s only th e "ground work o f th e picture, " or , a s w e migh t say , th e subjec t matter . "Th e superstructure howeve r mus t i n bot h case s b e th e work o f thos e ingenious Artist s themselves " (196 f.). I f an artist, for instance , take s th e "groundwork" fro m Scriptur e (wha t Duf f call s "th e sacre d Writings") , he finds only a shor t description ; "th e Painte r mus t imagin e th e rest " (i99)This restrictio n o f origina l geniu s t o histor y painting , an d t o epi c poetry, perhap s mor e precisel y indicate s wha t Duf f understand s b y "originality." It is th e powe r o f comprehensive invention , or , t o us e th e medieval term , creatio ex nihilo. Painte d portraits , and descriptive poetry , "may discove r grea t vivacit y an d strengt h o f Imagination ; bu t a s ther e is n o fiction, nothin g invente d i n either , the y ca n onl y b e regarde d a t best a s the first and most complet e copie s o f tru e originals " (190). 2. SULZE R

The proble m o f creativ e geniu s preoccupie d thinker s i n al l th e center s of intellectua l lif e o f lat e eighteenth-centur y Europe . Thoug h the y al l dealt wit h th e sam e problem , thei r attempt s t o unriddl e th e myster y o f how a genius produce s a new realit y too k differen t forms . Th e contri bution o f th e Swis s school , particularl y tha t o f Johan n Geor g Sulze r (1720-1779), i s significan t bot h a s a reflection o f ho w th e proble m wa s seen i n another par t o f Europe, an d as a source o f continuin g influence . Like Willia m Duff , Sulze r wa s no t primaril y intereste d i n th e visua l arts; hi s mai n concer n wa s wit h literature . Hi s discussio n o f ho w a genius shape s hi s wor k ha d a broad impac t o n th e though t o f hi s time ; it also shaped th e thinkin g o f painters an d sculptors. 289

Modern Theories of Art The historica l contex t o f Sulzer's doctrin e i s the nee d t o argu e agains t the mos t famou s an d mos t deepl y roote d interpretatio n o f art , namely , as th e imitatio n o f nature . I n th e eighteent h century , th e age-ol d imitation theor y o f ar t wa s reformulate d i n Batteaux' s popula r work , Les beaux-arts reduits a un mime principe (Th e fine art s reduce d t o a singl e principle).5 Th e principl e a t th e basi s o f th e fine arts , say s Batteaux , i s the imitatio n o f beautifu l nature . I t i s thi s principl e tha t Sulze r rejects , ' i n m y dictionar y [tha t is , th e systemati c work ] I shal l show, " Sulze r wrote t o a frien d i n 1756 , "tha t Batteaux' s principl e i s n o principl e a t all." Wha t Sulze r reject s i s no t th e qualifyin g wor d "beautiful " (i n "beautiful nature" ) bu t rathe r th e basi c ide a itself : tha t ar t i s a n imitation, an d tha t th e wor k o f ar t emerge s i n a proces s o f imitatin g a n external reality. 6 But wha t ca n replac e Batteaux' s principle ? I t i s her e tha t Sulzer' s notion o f a "pre-formin g art " appears . A s agains t th e time-honore d theory, surrounde d b y th e aur a o f Aristotelia n authority , tha t ar t i s essentially a n imitativ e activity , tha t i t reproduce s th e image s an d appearances o f object s i n nature , Sulze r suggest s tha t ar t doe s no t a t al l imitate th e individua l objec t encountere d i n th e outsid e world . T o b e sure, ar t doe s follo w nature , bu t i t doe s s o i n a broa d an d genera l way , not b y portrayin g th e object s tha t surroun d us , bu t rathe r b y imitatin g the manne r i n whic h natur e act s an d produce s th e object s an d creature s we see . Th e ide a tha t "Nature " i s no t simpl y a collectio n o f materia l objects, tha t i t is , rather , a comprehensiv e syste m o f interactin g force s —this ide a wa s no t new . Creativ e natur e wa s a well-know n them e i n European though t o n art. 7 Th e juxtapositio n o f natura naturans (active nature, creativ e forces ) an d natura naturata (passiv e nature , materia l objects) wa s als o employe d i n orde r t o understand , an d explain , th e mystery o f th e artist' s production . Sulzer , inheritin g thes e thought s from forme r generations , believe s tha t b y "pre-forming " i n hi s min d the object s an d shape s h e wil l late r represen t i n hi s works , th e artis t acts lik e Natur e herself . Sulzer's notio n o f a "pre-formin g art " clearl y derive s fro m Platoni c thought, eve n thoug h hi s doctrin e doe s no t precisel y correspon d t o Plato's system . Th e lat e eighteent h centur y her e draw s directl y fro m that grea t traditio n o f aestheti c reflectio n tha t wa s concerne d wit h th e 290

The Artist artist's idea, and that tradition, as we know, 8 wa s profoundly determine d by Platoni c thought . I t wa s fro m thi s traditio n tha t th e moder n notio n of "ideal " emerged . Sulze r i s on e o f th e link s connectin g th e traditio n of th e artisti c idea with th e moder n 'ideal " i n aesthetics . H e regard s the Idea l a s the artisti c visio n fro m whic h th e wor k o f ar t emerges. "B y this word [Ideal] one expresse s ever y original imag e (Urbild) o f an object of ar t whic h th e artist' s imaginatio n ha s shape d wit h som e likenes s t o natural objects , and after whic h h e [th e artist ] works." Given thes e context s an d sources , on e i s no t surprise d t o find tha t Sulzer sharpl y distinguishe s imaginatio n fro m imitation , o r th e imag e produced i n th e artist' s min d fro m th e image s h e perceive s i n his visua l experience. Th e former, als o called th e Ideal , is the sourc e an d origin o f the work o f art . "O f any object o f ar t tha t ha s not bee n draw n afte r a n object presen t i n nature but ha s received it s essence an d shape from th e artist's genius , on e ca n sa y tha t i t i s mad e afte r a n Ideal, " say s Sulzer . This i s so , i t seems , eve n whe n th e shape s see n i n th e work o f ar t ar e "similar" to th e shape s o f objects see n i n nature. Sulzer take s up , an d strongl y rejects , th e age-ol d metapho r o f paint ing a s a mirror o f nature . Originall y th e metapho r indicate d ho w full y and precisel y th e artis t imitate s nature . Thus , whe n Leonard o d a Vinc i requires tha t th e artis t b e a mirror, h e wishes t o emphasiz e th e valu e o f the wor k o f art when representing , full y an d precisely, wha t on e see s i n the outsid e world . T o Sulze r th e mirro r ha s a n altogethe r differen t meaning: he sees i n it th e passiv e reflectio n o f what happen s t o stan d in front o f us , th e lac k o f spontaneity . The artist , h e says , i s no t a "dea d mirror." The mirro r cannot hel p reflectin g precisely , withou t chang e o r transformation, wha t happen s t o b e i n fron t o f it . Th e artis t doe s th e very opposite : h e spontaneousl y produce s hi s object , an d h e ma y therefore b e said t o ac t a s Nature acts. Emphasizing th e productive , creativ e natur e o f geniu s i n ar t lead s Sulzer t o a discussio n o f stil l anothe r ancien t theme . Thi s i s th e so called "electio n doctrine, " whic h attempt s t o explai n ho w th e artis t i s capable o f producing a perfect, "ideal " form. Eve r since Antiquit y i t has been suggeste d tha t th e artis t choose s th e mos t beautifu l an d mos t appropriate part s i n nature , an d combine s the m int o on e singl e figure. Best know n i s th e stor y o f th e classica l sculpto r who , give n th e tas k o f 291

Modern Theories of Art carving a n imag e o f Aphrodite , chos e th e five mos t beautifu l maidens , and the n copie d fro m eac h o f the m u the mos t beautifu l parts, " t o combine the m int o th e idea l statu e o f th e goddess. 9 This theor y prevail s in a grea t dea l o f Renaissanc e an d Baroqu e reflection s o n art . I n th e eighteenth century , too , th e electio n doctrin e wa s th e primar y mode l for explainin g ho w a n artis t i s capable o f shapin g a n idea l form . Mengs , himself a celebrate d artis t an d presiden t o f th e Roma n Academ y o f Art , as w e hav e seen , uphel d th e orthodo x doctrine . B y th e Ideal , h e say s "the artis t i s understood , t o mak e a goo d selectio n i n nature , no t t o invent ne w things.'' 10 Here, on e i s no t surprise d t o find, Sulze r sharpl y disagrees . T o b e sure, th e artist s who , "wit h consideratio n an d taste , choos e th e bes t i n nature" ar e superio r t o thos e wh o "stic k precisel y t o nature , an d pic k the object s [models ] the y nee d a s thes e happe n t o b e encountered , without selectin g th e bette r ones. " Ye t eve n thos e artist s wh o hav e "consideration an d taste " d o no t reac h th e zenit h o f art . T o th e highes t class belon g onl y thos e artist s t o whom , a s Sulze r pu t it , "natur e ca n n o longer b e sufficient , an d who , b y th e creativ e powe r o f thei r genius , shape idea l form s o f thei r own. " Sulzer seem s t o hav e held—thoug h h e wa s neve r quit e clea r i n thi s respect—that h e ha d a differen t vie w o f th e natur e o f th e Idea l fro m that accepte d i n hi s time . T o Winckelmann , th e Idea l primaril y indi cates perfection , th e ful l attainmen t o f th e aim . Th e ar t o f th e ideal , therefore, i s roughl y concomittan t wit h renderin g th e essentia l i n na ture, th e complet e an d typica l characte r o f th e phenomen a w e experi ence. I t wa s thi s ai m tha t Gree k ar t achieve d wit h flawles s purity . Sulzer, o n th e othe r hand , stresse d tim e an d agai n tha t th e tru e Idea l transcends Nature . Wha t h e probabl y mean t b y thi s wa s no t onl y tha t the Idea l doe s no t depen d o n th e individua l objec t o r shap e i n natur e (that woul d hav e bee n generall y accepted) , bu t tha t i t doe s no t deriv e from Natur e a t all, eve n i f w e understan d Natur e a s a n overal l system . Pefection i n art , th e ver y essenc e o f th e Ideal , h e says , derives no t fro m nature bu t fro m genius . Perfectio n i s a qualit y b y whic h "th e work s o f great artist s acquir e a powe r highe r tha n th e on e foun d i n th e natura l objects o f tast e an d emotion." 11 Onl y me n o f grea t genius , ou r autho r claims, ar e abl e t o produc e idea l shapes , superio r t o natur e i n perfec 292

The Artist tion. Goeth e ridicule d Sulzer' s views ; hi s idea l shapes , th e grea t poe t said, hove r "hig h up , i n th e empyrea n o f transcendenta l beautifu l value."12 Whil e Sulzer' s attemp t t o detac h th e Idea l from natur e invite s criticism, i t nevertheles s show s wher e th e focu s o f hi s thought , an d largely tha t o f hi s generation, lay . 3. WACKENRODE R

In readin g Willia m Duf f an d Johan n Geor g Sulzer , w e hav e see n th e beginnings o f a Romantic theor y o f art. Thi s theor y reache d a climax i n the though t o f a youn g Germa n writer , Wilhel m Heinric h Wacken roder. Hi s literar y wor k wa s compose d durin g a very shor t span , fro m 1792 t o Februar y 1798 , whe n h e die d a t th e ag e o f twenty-five . I n quantity, Wackenroder' s wor k i s rathe r limited : includin g letter s an d travel diaries , i t consist s o f n o mor e tha n five hundre d smal l printe d pages. Th e modes t volum e o f thi s oeuvre , however , stand s i n marke d contrast t o it s influence , i n breadt h a s wel l a s i n depth , o n intellectua l life i n Europe , an d particularly o n th e spiritua l climat e o f discussion s o f art during most o f th e nineteent h century . Wackenroder's impac t wa s fel t i n man y fields. H e i s on e o f th e founders o f a particula r literar y genre , th e "nove l o f th e artist " (Kiinstlerroman), tha t live s o n t o ou r ow n day . H e playe d a n importan t par t in engenderin g a renewe d interes t i n earl y Germa n art , particularl y Durer. Hi s imag e o f tha t artis t wil l hardl y b e accepte d b y th e historia n (he pictured Durer , th e grea t humanis t wh o admire d Ital y an d wa s attracted t o th e ne w messag e comin g fro m it , a s a deeply piou s artisa n who humbl y clun g t o th e suppose d loca l tradition s o f workmanship) , but i t exerte d a profoun d influence . Wackenrode r strongl y influence d the pre-Raphaelit e movemen t i n paintin g an d it s literar y interpreters . His most importan t legacy , thoug h i t i s difficult t o pinpoin t precisely , i s his contribution toward s placin g a new them e i n the cente r o f aestheti c reflection—the them e o f conflic t betwee n th e artis t an d hi s audience , or society . I t i s no w commo n knowledg e tha t thi s wa s t o becom e a central topos i n Romanti c though t o n art , a cardinal par t o f th e moder n world's inheritanc e fro m Romanticism . Wackenroder's emotiona l style—effusiv e i n wording, exalte d in tone 293

Modern Theories of Art —does no t mak e fo r eas y reading . Th e moder n reade r ofte n wonder s how thes e text s coul d hav e ha d suc h a n effect . Wackenroder' s best known composition , th e Confessions from the Heart of an Art Loving Friar (1797), reveal s bot h th e author' s view s o n paintin g an d poetr y an d th e atmosphere h e wishe s t o creat e i n th e contemplatio n o f work s o f art. * 3 The mas k o f a n "art-lovin g friar' ' ma y wel l b e assume d i n answe r t o a desire fo r anonymity . I t als o suggest s ho w closely , i n Wackenroder' s view, ar t i s related t o religion . Th e writin g i s rich i n connotation . Wha t it lack s i n clarit y o f expositio n an d directnes s o f statement , i t make s u p in wha t ma y b e calle d "atomspheri c effect " an d evocativ e power . Wackenroder devote s a grea t dea l o f attentio n t o th e spectator' s experience, an d t o wha t shoul d b e th e beholder' s appropriat e attitud e to th e wor k o f ar t h e contemplates . I t mark s hi s historica l positio n tha t he take s i t a s a matte r o f cours e tha t th e spectator' s experienc e i s par t and parce l o f th e theor y o f art . Th e interes t i n th e spectator' s experi ence shoul d no t howeve r b e mistake n fo r an y kin d o f critica l attitude . On th e contrary , wit h a trul y religiou s fervor , h e ask s th e spectato r t o forego an y criticism , no t t o pas s judgment, bu t t o ope n u p hi s hear t t o the wor k o f ar t h e i s experiencing . Eve n prais e o f a paintin g i s no t a proper attitude . "I t i s no t sufficien t t o sa y i n prais e o f a wor k o f art : 'I t is beautifu l an d excellent, ' fo r thes e genera l phrase s appl y t o th e mos t varied works;—w e mus t b e abl e t o surrende r ourselve s t o ever y grea t artist, loo k upo n an d comprehen d th e thing s o f Nature , wit h his senses and spea k i n his soul: 'Th e wor k i s correct an d true in it s way ' " (129 ; 85). As th e spectato r ferventl y desire s t o identif y wit h th e specifi c wor k o f art h e i s lookin g at , h e necessaril y give s u p an y attemp t t o compar e i t with an y othe r wor k o f art ; h e resigns , a s i t were , hi s positio n outsid e the wor k o f ar t h e i s seeing . Experiencin g a great wor k o f ar t become s a kin d o f unio mystica. The spectato r wh o full y "surrenders " t o th e wor k o f ar t befor e him , Wackenroder wa s certain , i s grante d a n intuitiv e gras p o f it s essenc e and character . Thi s notion , t o b e sure , i s no t discusse d i n theoretica l terms, bu t th e belie f reverberate s throug h mos t o f Wackenroder' s writings. Ou r whol e person , h e suggests , take s par t i n intuitivel y grasp ing th e wor k o f ar t t o whic h w e ar e surrendering . I n hi s articl e o n Diirer, include d i n th e Confessions, w e read : "Al l o f th e figures speak ; 294

The Artist they spea k openl y an d wit h refinement . N o ar m move s superfluousl y o r merely t o pleas e th e eye s an d fill u p th e space ; al l o f th e limbs , everything speak s t o u s a s i f wit h force , s o tha t w e comprehen d wit h genuine firmness th e meanin g an d th e sou l o f th e entir e picture . W e believe everythin g whic h th e artisti c ma n present s t o us ; i t i s neve r blotted ou t o f ou r memory " (113^9) . In devotedl y experiencin g a picture w e perceiv e it s message, as we understan d th e wil l of God whil e we ar e immerse d i n devotiona l contemplation . " I compar e th e enjoy ment o f th e mor e nobl e work s o f ar t t o prayer, " sai d Wackenrode r (126,79). Lookin g a t a wor k o f ar t ha s a n affinit y t o witnessin g a revelation. What precisel y i s i t tha t i s reveale d i n th e wor k o f art ? After th e spectator ha s fully "surrendered " t o th e wor k h e i s contemplating, wha t does h e actuall y perceive ? Pu t i n les s metaphorica l terms , th e questio n might read : wha t ar e w e lookin g fo r whe n w e loo k a t a wor k o f art ? The answe r i s fa r fro m obvious . Th e reade r note s tha t a considerabl e part o f Wackenroder' s literar y legacy , particularl y i n th e Confessions, consists o f description s o f paintings . S o significant i s th e par t playe d b y these description s tha t on e i s tempte d t o se e her e a reviva l o f ekphrasis, that ancien t literar y genr e tha t consiste d o f th e descriptio n of—rea l o r imaginary—paintings. Th e Confessions eve n includ e a chapte r o n "Ho w and i n wha t Manne r on e actuall y mus t regar d th e us e o f th e Work s o f the Grea t Artist s o f th e Eart h fo r th e Wel l Bein g o f hi s Soul " ( i 2 £ 127). Bu t i f on e no w turn s t o hi s description s i n th e hop e o f finding some informatio n abou t th e painting s described , on e i s boun d t o b e disappointed. Ou r autho r altogethe r neglecte d th e materia l nature , th e sensory aspec t o f th e painting s h e wa s describing . I n Wackenroder' s Confessions, Heinric h Woelffli n noted , w e d o no t find "descriptions " o f a specifi c painting , bu t rathe r poeti c fantasie s o n a give n subject. 14 What, then , doe s Wackenrode r loo k fo r i n a painting ? The answe r t o thi s question , I believe , shows , wh y Wackenrode r found suc h abundan t ech o i n th e cultur e o f Romanticism . Wha t th e spectator look s for , an d indee d finds, i n a paintin g ar e no t th e materia l or forma l component s o f th e paintin g itself ; th e tru e subjec t o f th e spectator's vision , i n Wackenroder' s view , i s th e personalit y o f th e artist. Th e wor k o f art, i t turn s out , i s only a stepping-stone o n ou r wa y 29£

Modern Theories of Art to th e artist , a mediu m throug h whic h w e ca n mee t him . A n articl e o n Albrecht Durer , publishe d posthumousl y i n Fantasies on Art for Friends of Art (1799 ) (an d no t t o b e confuse d wit h th e articl e o n Dure r include d in th e Confessions), open s wit h a remarkable statement : "I t i s a delightfu l matter t o recreat e i n one' s min d a n artis t decease d lon g ag o fro m th e works whic h h e lef t behin d and , fro m amids t al l th e variou s lustrou s beams, find th e foca l poin t t o whic h the y lea d bac k or , rather , th e heavenly sta r fro m whic h the y emanated . The n w e hav e befor e u s th e World Sou l o f al l creations,— a poe m o f ou r imagination , fro m whic h the actua l lif e o f th e ma n i s completel y excluded " (164) : No t onl y ar e we no t lookin g fo r dates , authroship , o r an y othe r kin d o f "external " information; i n truth , w e ar e no t eve n lookin g a t lines , brus h strokes , or chise l marks . Th e bes t wa y o f seein g a picture , i t appears , i s t o loo k through it . Befor e th e work s o f Raphael , Wackenrode r says , you forge t that ther e ar e color s an d a n ar t o f paintin g (91) . A Renaissanc e artis t might hav e continue d suc h a n exclamatio n b y claimin g tha t yo u forge t the ar t o f paintin g becaus e yo u believ e th e object s i n th e pictur e t o b e real objects . No t s o Wackenroder . Yo u forge t tha t ther e i s a n ar t o f painting, h e thought , becaus e yo u encounte r th e artis t directly . Lookin g at a picture , w e ar e i n a semimystica l wa y perceivin g th e creativ e artis t himself. I t i s wit h him , wit h th e ric h lif e o f hi s soul , tha t th e spectato r is identifying . A centra l them e i n Wackenroder' s though t i s th e process—or , i f you will , th e mystery—o f artisti c creation . Hi s fascinatio n wit h Ra phael, Leonardo , an d Dure r i s no t focuse d o n th e individua l product s of thei r geniu s (w e hav e jus t mentione d ho w littl e attentio n h e i n fac t devotes t o th e specifi c wor k o f art) . But , i n fact , h e i s als o no t ver y much concerne d wit h th e individua l characte r o f the painte r a s a uniqu e human bein g o r a s a specia l psychologica l type , an d h e show s littl e interest i n th e event s o f hi s life . Wha t attract s hi m i n thes e great artist s is their creativ e activity . H e studie s the m i n th e hop e tha t thi s wil l hel p him t o understan d ho w th e min d o f a n artis t works , ho w h e create s hi s work. The questio n i s no t new . Th e proble m o f th e artist , i n on e wa y o r another, ha s occupie d th e min d o f man y periods . Sinc e th e sixteent h century a t least , th e questio n o f whether , o r not , th e artis t i s th e tru e 296

The Artist origin o f hi s wor k ha d stirre d philosopher s an d artists . I t wa s asked : how i s i t possibl e fo r th e artis t t o produc e hi s work , an d ho w far , i f a t all, doe s th e wor k bea r th e imprin t o f hi s personality ? Notwithstandin g the recurrin g concern , earlie r period s di d no t provid e a sufficientl y articulate framewor k fo r a thoroug h discussio n o f th e creativ e act . However on e ma y conside r th e articulatio n o f th e concept s o f creatio n in th e aestheti c though t o f forme r ages , in Wackenrode r th e conceptua l framework, an d eve n th e terminolog y employed , belon g t o th e religiou s traditions o f Germa n Pietism. 15 Whil e h e obviousl y doe s no t us e pietis tic notion s t o analyz e artist s a s religiou s individuals , h e foun d i n tha t tradition th e conceptua l tool s fo r a discussio n o f creativity . Looking bac k a t Wackenroder' s wor k fro m a distanc e o f tw o centu ries, i t stand s ou t fo r hi s attemp t t o she d ligh t o n th e artist' s creativ e act. Instea d o f conceivin g o f tha t act , whic h ha s puzzle d s o man y thinkers, a s o f a n instant , a momentous , bu t shapeles s illumination , Wackenroder describe s i t a s a structure d process , th e stage s o f whic h can b e distinguishe d separately . Ou r autho r wa s o f cours e wel l awar e that th e myster y o f th e creativ e ac t i s one tha t th e artis t himsel f canno t fully penetrate . H e make s Raphae l sa y t o a n imaginar y pupi l tha t he , the grea t maste r himself , canno t explai n ho w h e paint s hi s Madonna s — "no t becaus e i t i s a secre t I woul d no t wan t t o disclos e . .. bu t because I mysel f d o no t kno w it " (93) . Wackenrode r nevertheles s describes an d analyzes , thoug h implicitl y rathe r tha n openly , wha t happens whe n a painter produce s a picture . The creativ e proces s begin s wit h a stag e o f half-consciou s probing . Wackenroder mus t hav e bee n on e o f th e earlies t author s t o assum e tha t the proces s o f artisti c creatio n doe s no t begi n wit h a brigh t ide a o r vision, bu t rathe r wit h a stag e calle d u dark presentiment " (dunkle Ahnung). In thi s stage , th e artis t doe s perceiv e something , som e genera l contour, o f wha t th e wor k o f ar t wil l eventuall y represen t an d wha t i t will loo k like , but h e perceive s i t i n a blurred, confused , "dark " fashion . The notio n o f "dar k presentiment, " o f a vagu e intuitio n a s th e begin ning o f th e artist' s labor , wa s no t unhear d o f aroun d th e tur n o f th e century. Kar l Phili p Moritz , th e influentia l philosophe r o f aesthetics an d poetics, speak s o f a dunkle Ahnung through whic h th e wor k materialize s in th e poet' s mind. 16 Friedric h Schille r wrot e t o Goethe , o n th e 27t h o f 297

Modern Theories of Art March 1801 , of a dark, bu t powerfu l comprehensiv e ide a (Totalidee) tha t precedes al l technica l efforts . Wackenrode r belong s t o th e sam e broa d school o f thought . H e stand s out , however , b y makin g "dar k presenti ment" a full-fledge d stag e i n th e creativ e process , an d b y specificall y applying i t t o painting . Wackenroder doe s no t offe r hi s view s o n th e creativ e proces s a s a systematic doctrine ; they ar e rathe r implie d i n hi s descriptions. Raphael , for example , alway s desire d t o pain t th e Virgin , unti l finally h e decide d to d o so . Sinc e tha t decision , Day and nigh t hi s mind ha d constantl y worke d o n he r pictur e i n abstraction ; but h e ha d no t bee n abl e t o perfec t i t a t al l t o hi s satisfaction ; i t ha d alway s seemed t o hi m a s if his fantasy wer e workin g i n the dar k . . . occasionally th e picture ha d falle n int o hi s sou l lik e a heavenl y bea m o f light , s o tha t h e ha d seen th e figure before himsel f wit h vivi d features , jus t a s h e wishe d i t t o be ; and yet , tha t ha d alway s bee n onl y a momen t an d h e ha d no t bee n abl e t o retain th e conception i n his mind. (84) In tha t initia l stage , th e artist' s stat e o f min d i s on e o f restlessness , anxiety, an d pain . Raphae l pray s t o th e Virgi n i n hi s drea m (84) , th e musician Josep h Berglinge r shed s tears . A t thi s stage , th e artis t employ s different technique s designe d t o hel p hi m overcom e th e "darkness " o f his perception , an d t o mak e hi m arriv e a t a n articulat e form . Wacken roder use s Renaissanc e literatur e t o pictur e th e artist' s struggle s i n thi s early stag e o f his work. Pier o d i Cosimo , so our autho r freel y transcribe s Vasari an d Leonardo , "frequentl y fixed hi s eye s rigidl y o n old , patched , many-colored wall s or o n th e cloud s i n th e sk y and, fro m suc h working s of Nature , hi s imaginatio n seize d variou s fantasti c idea s abou t wil d battles wit h horse s o r abou t hug e mountai n landscape s wit h strang e villages" (122). 17 Th e artis t long s t o b e redeeme d fro m th e pai n an d stress o f tha t initial , "dark " stag e o f creation . The secon d stag e i n th e creativ e process , a s Wackenroder sa w it , ca n be describe d a s tha t o f inspiration . I t i s mainl y no w tha t wha t i s calle d "creative imagination " come s int o play . I n th e lat e eighteent h centur y the theor y o f geniu s coul d no t b e full y separate d fro m th e doctrin e o f creative imagination . Th e creativ e imaginatio n itsel f wa s eithe r rational istically explaine d a s a maturin g o f memorie s (a s b y Sulzer ) o r i t wa s 298

The Artist considered a divin e gif t (a s b y th e Germa n philosophe r Hamann) . Wackenroder i s close r t o Hamann . Sulzer' s explanatio n o f genius , h e says i n a lette r o f Jun e 12 , 1792 , i s "s o frost y an d superficial , s o littl e philosophical, a s i s everythin g o f thi s kin d i n hi s work. " In fact , Wackenroder als o learne d fro m Sulzer . However , i n th e matte r o f inspiration h e wa s followin g th e doctrin e o f a divine source . Inspiration, i n th e author' s view , i s th e momen t a t whic h th e Ideal , intuitively ye t darkl y fel t i n th e first stag e o f th e creativ e process , appears t o th e artist' s vision ; no w i t ca n b e perceive d b y th e senses . The exampl e adduce d is , onc e again , Raphael . Wackenrode r refer s t o Baldassare Castiglione' s repor t o f Raphael's relyin g o n u a certai n menta l image" o f feminin e beaut y residin g i n hi s sou l i n orde r t o represen t a beautiful goddess. 18 Moder n student s hav e note d tha t whil e Raphae l made thi s referenc e t o a menta l imag e i n connectio n wit h depictin g a pagan goddes s (Galatea) , Wackenrode r applie s i t t o th e representatio n of a Madonna . Th e substitutio n o f a Hol y Virgi n fo r a paga n goddess , however, i s not significan t fo r ou r purpose . Wha t remain s i n bot h case s is th e centra l characteristi c o f thi s stage : th e followin g o f a menta l image. Her e th e Romanti c criti c doe s indee d depar t fro m hi s Renais sance source . Wherea s Castiglion e seem s t o conside r th e "certai n men tal image " a s a stabl e idea, Wackenroder describe s i t a s a momentar y illumination, a kind o f sudde n revelation . The clea r vision , th e sudde n revelation , i t i s important t o note , i s no t immediately linke d t o th e actua l paintin g o f th e picture . Raphae l perceives th e visio n a t night , i n a dreamlike fashion . I t "remaine d firmly stamped o n hi s min d an d hi s sense s fo r eternity. " Therefore , th e artis t "succeeded i n portrayin g th e Mothe r o f Go d eac h tim e jus t a s sh e ha d appeared t o hi s soul " (84—85) . Th e articulat e visio n mark s a separat e stage i n th e creativ e process . The moder n critica l studen t wil l o f cours e note , possibl y wit h som e scepticism, tha t th e Virgin' s articulat e "appearance, " whic h doe s no t originate i n th e artist' s sou l o r mind , closel y correspond s t o wha t h e had "darkly " intuite d i n th e first stage . Wackenrode r fel t thi s difficulty . "The mos t wonderfu l aspec t o f all," he says , "was tha t h e [Raphael ] fel t as i f thi s pictur e [th e on e h e sa w i n th e dreamlik e appearance ] wer e precisely th e on e whic h h e ha d alway s sought , althoug h h e ha d onl y a 299

Modern Theories of Art dim an d confuse d conceptio n o f it " (84) . The marve l o f thi s correspon dence ca n b e understoo d onl y b y assumin g som e outsid e agent , eithe r a divine pla n o r a Platoni c idea , inspirin g th e artis t durin g hi s struggle s i n the "dark " perio d an d "recognized " b y hi m i n th e nocturna l appear ance. Base d o n th e analysi s o f som e metaphors , mainl y o f light , th e Platonic alternativ e ha s bee n suggeste d a s th e mor e likel y one. 19 Be tha t a s i t may , th e adven t o f th e inspiratio n i s a breakthrough, a n extraordinary experienc e tha t change s th e artist' s lif e an d perhap s als o his nature . Wackenrode r speak s o f th e artist' s "consecration " (Weihe) in the wak e o f thi s experience . Raphael , th e reade r i s told , "ha d suddenl y started ou t o f hi s sleep , violentl y disturbed . . . . Th e divinit y i n th e picture ha d s o overpowere d hi m tha t h e ha d broke n ou t int o ho t tears . . . . The nex t mornin g h e ha d arise n a s if newly born " (84) . Experiencin g the inspirin g visio n i s linke d t o a stat e o f heightene d consciousness . Thus Wackenrode r make s Raphae l writ e t o a suppose d pupi l tha t h e executed hi s picture s o f th e Virgi n a s i f i n a "pleasan t drea m (93) . Th e dreamlike characte r o f hi s menta l stat e indicate s th e unusual , supernat ural mod e o f consciousness. Wackenroder' s languag e i n describin g thes e states i s deepl y influence d b y th e languag e o f Germa n Pietism ; th e formulations ofte n remin d on e o f thos e o f Jako b Boehme , th e grea t seventeenth-century mystic. 20 Boehm e wa s popula r i n th e literatur e o f German Romanticism , an d Wackenrode r ma y hav e bee n attracte d t o him particularl y becaus e o f hi s description s o f a heightene d stat e o f consciousness. When th e artis t ha s experience d hi s inspiration , an d afte r h e ha s perceived th e clea r an d articulat e vision , th e wor k o f ar t i s no t ye t shaped. Thi s happen s i n th e thir d stag e o f th e creativ e process . I t i s th e stage i n whic h th e ide a i s materialize d i n matter , th e pictur e i s actuall y painted. Th e basi c requirement s o f thi s stag e ar e skil l an d technique , and Wackenroder' s attitud e t o the m i s ambivalent . One i s not surprise d t o find tha t h e reject s rules , an d tha t h e sharpl y criticizes th e artis t wh o exhibit s forma l effect s fo r thei r ow n sake . H e praises Dlire r fo r hi s "seriousness, " an d juxtapose s thi s characteristi c against th e fascinatio n wit h forma l displa y t o whic h s o man y artist s fal l victim. Th e discussio n o f artisti c value s her e become s a criticis m o f society an d a statement o n th e Romanti c idea l o f man. Th e mor e recen t 300

The Artist artists, Wackenrode r writes , d o no t "wan t on e t o participat e i n tha t which the y portra y fo r us ; the y wor k fo r aristocrati c gentlemen , wh o do no t wan t t o b e move d an d ennoble d b y ar t bu t [rather ] dazzle d an d titillated t o th e highes t degree ; the y striv e t o mak e thei r painting s specimens o f many lovel y and deceivin g colors; they tes t thei r clevernes s in th e scatterin g o f ligh t an d shadow;—however , th e huma n figures frequently see m t o b e i n th e pictur e merel y fo r th e sak e o f th e color s and th e light , I would indee d lik e t o say , as a necessary evil " (i 13-114). Manual dexterit y an d th e master y o f artistic techniques , o n th e othe r hand, ca n serv e th e manifestatio n o f the spirit , makin g th e artist' s visio n accessible t o th e beholder . I n th e introductio n t o hi s essa y o n Leonard o da Vinci , Wackenrode r warn s th e reade r agains t thos e artist s who , "armed wit h superficia l an d fleeting pseudo-enthusiasm , tak e th e field against serious , wel l founde d scholarship " (97) . Ou r autho r extol s Leonardo's "industriou s observation " o f th e realit y aroun d him . Leo nardo kne w tha t "th e artisti c spiri t ough t t o . . . roam abou t assiduousl y outside o f itsel f an d see k ou t al l th e form s o f creatio n wit h agil e dexterity an d preserv e thei r shape s an d imprint s i n th e storehous e o f his mind " (99) . In spit e o f Wackenroder' s stron g leanin g toward s wha t h e call s "th e spiritual," h e doe s no t altogethe r disregar d tha t stag e i n th e creativ e process i n whic h th e painte r actuall y paint s th e picture . Here , however , he point s t o th e dange r o f overevaluatin g th e specifi c characteristic s o f this stage—th e virtuosit y an d "cleverness " o f forma l effects . Carefull y reading Wackenroder' s writings , on e perceive s tha t n o suc h dange r exists wit h regar d t o th e first stage s o f th e process—dar k intuitio n an d inspired vision . Th e executio n o f th e wor k o f ar t i n th e materia l medium i s th e onl y par t o f th e creativ e proces s that , whil e necessary , i s ambiguous i n character . Wackenroder eve n goe s a ste p further . In considerin g th e wor k o f art itself , h e applie s t o i t th e distinctio n betwee n "inner " an d "outer, " a distinctio n s o popula r i n Romanti c thought . In th e rea l wor k o f ar t a s we actuall y experienc e it—painte d o n canva s o r carve d i n stone—h e looks fo r a n inne r kerne l an d a n oute r shell . The distinctio n betwee n "inner " an d "outer, " a s on e knows , ulti mately derive s fro m th e belie f i n th e existenc e o f a higher, "true " worl d 301

Modern Theories of Art of whic h th e worl d o f ou r sense s i s onl y a n insufficient , pal e reflection . This distinction , a cornerston e o f th e Platoni c traditio n i n Europea n thought, wa s als o applie d t o beauty . Wackenrode r share d thi s belief . Every creature , h e says , strive s toward s th e beautiful , bu t i t ca n neve r go beyon d itself . W e perceiv e wha t w e can se e of beauty, neve r absolut e beauty itself . Onl y i n moment s o f ecstati c intuitio n ar e w e abl e t o name universal, origina l beauty , bu t w e ar e no t abl e t o reproduc e it . W e ar e always force d t o conten t ourselve s wit h ou r impressions . Therefore , a multitude an d variet y o f impression s rule s ou r realm ; onl y Go d ca n perceive absolut e beauty . "Jus t a s a differen t imag e o f th e rainbo w enters int o ever y morta l eye , s o to o doe s th e surroundin g worl d reflec t for eac h individua l a differen t imprin t o f beauty . . . . However , univer sal, origina l beaut y . . . reveal s itsel f unt o th e On e wh o create d th e rainbow an d th e ey e tha t behold s it " ( i 11). These ideas , w e nee d hardl y stress , wer e th e commo n propert y o f all periods fro m th e beginning s o f Neoplatonism t o Romanticism . Restatin g them was , then , hardl y a startlin g innovation . Bu t Wackenrode r sur prises th e studen t b y takin g i t fo r grante d tha t th e cosmi c spli t betwee n "inner" an d "outer " als o applie s t o th e individua l wor k o f art . T o b e sure, i t i s ofte n no t eas y t o sa y i n just wha t th e "outside " o f a paintin g (or, fo r tha t matter , o f a poem ) consists , a s oppose d t o it s "inner " being. Mainly , i t woul d seem , th e "outer " shell , o r being , o f a n ar t work i s suppose d t o consis t i n it s form , an d i n it s materializatio n i n a specific medium . Everythin g tha t doe s no t instantaneousl y emerge , bu t is produce d wit h reflectiv e consideratio n woul d see m t o th e Romantic s as close r t o th e "external. " I n th e lat e eighteent h century , thi s notio n may hav e bee n linke d wit h th e theor y o f signs , particularl y wit h th e distinction betwee n wha t wer e the n calle d th e natura l an d th e artificia l signs. Thus , Mose s Mendelssoh n believe d tha t movements , tones , an d gestures ar e natura l signs , bein g linke d t o th e "thin g itself, " wherea s language, bein g derive d fro m deliberat e agreement , i s a syste m o f conventional signs. 21 Wackenroder , lik e other Romantics , als o consider s language a s "external; " i t i s based o n convention s tha t wer e deliberatel y set up . Th e understandin g o f languag e als o mean s t o g o beyon d th e words an d sentence s themselves . This , i n a sense, enhance s th e valu e o f the visua l arts . " A preciou s painting, " s o w e rea d i n hi s essa y o n ho w 302

The Artist to experienc e work s o f art , "i s no t a paragrap h o f a textboo k which , when wit h a brie f effor t I hav e extracte d th e meanin g o f th e words , I then se t asid e a s a useless shell ; rather, i n superio r work s th e enjoymen t continues o n an d o n withou t ceasing . W e believ e w e ar e penetratin g deeper an d deepe r int o the m and , nevertheless , the y continuousl y arouse ou r sens e ane w an d w e forese e n o boundar y a t whic h ou r sou l would hav e exhauste d them " (127) . Statements lik e thi s mak e th e notio n o f th e "external " i n a paintin g even mor e problematic . I f th e visibl e appearanc e o f a painting , it s line s and colors , it s shape s an d tones , canno t b e se t asid e lik e a useles s shell , but rathe r continuousl y arouse s ou r sense , doe s i t mea n anythin g t o describe i t a s "external" ? In wha t way , indeed , i s i t external ? Wacken roder neve r provide s a n answer , no r d o th e othe r Romanti c author s who, i n on e wa y o r another , use , o r allud e to , thi s distinctio n wit h regard t o painting . Ther e i s a vague , thoug h powerful , feelin g o f th e distinction betwee n inne r an d oute r i n th e picture , bu t thi s feelin g never crystallize s int o conceptua l clarity . The concep t o f th e painting' s "inner " natur e i s no t muc h cleare r o r easier t o demonstrat e tha n tha t o f it s "external " aspect . Th e "inner " nature o f a painting , i t shoul d b e sai d a t once , i s no t it s contents , th e subject matte r o r theme , a s oppose d t o th e form , whic h migh t b e see n as external . Th e divisio n betwee n "inner " an d "outer " doe s no t corre spond t o th e divisio n betwee n subjec t matte r an d form . I t ha s bee n noted tha t whe n Wackenrode r juxtapose s "inner " an d "outer, " hi s language become s particularl y vague . Nevertheless , i t seem s possibl e t o claim tha t hi s views of the "inner " natur e o f a painting oscillate betwee n two meanings , which , fo r wan t o f better terms , may b e called emotiona l and metaphysical . In on e sense , then , th e "inner " natur e o f a paintin g consist s o f th e emotions th e pictur e convey s o r evokes . Ofte n Wackenrode r equate s "inner" wit h huma n emotion s o r th e huma n mind . Particularl y i n speaking o f work s o f music , h e describe s thei r "inner " natur e a s th e preserved emotiona l life , whethe r o f th e compose r o r th e listener . Bu t for pictures , too , thi s interpretatio n i s valid . Another sens e o f th e "inner " i s les s psychologica l an d emotional ; i t rather point s t o differen t level s o f being . Th e inne r natur e o f certai n 303

Modern Theories of Art paintings, on e feel s i n reading , i s th e manifestation , o r perhap s th e embodiment, o f a superterrestrial reality . Th e languag e o f art , Wacken roder believes , reveal s "thing s celestial, " o r "th e secret s o f th e skies. " To b e sure , i t i s no t alway s clea r wha t precisel y h e mean s b y thes e metaphors. Ar e th e "thing s celestial " th e infinit y o f th e universe , o r th e mysteries o f a religiou s divinity ? Thoug h th e answe r i s no t clear-cut , i t is obviou s tha t the y ar e no t identica l wit h ou r emotiona l life , wit h ou r subjective desire s an d longings . Th e "inner " ma y b e elusive , i t ma y no t be possibl e t o gras p it , ye t i t i s conceived a s an objectiv e reality . In th e end , i t ma y no t b e essentia l t o defin e th e precis e natur e o f th e "inner" bein g o f th e wor k o f art . Wha t i s crucia l i s th e feelin g tha t there i s mor e tha n ca n b e clearl y expressed , tha t a wor k o f ar t hold s more tha n meet s th e eye . Wha t th e divisio n betwee n "inner " an d "outer" ultimatel y lead s t o i s th e insigh t tha t th e wor k o f ar t i s a n insufficient reflectio n o f wha t i t purport s t o represent . It i s no t surprisin g tha t Romantics , s o profoundl y awar e o f th e rupture betwee n hidde n meaning s an d visibl e forms , wer e attracte d b y the concep t o f th e hieroglyph . Wheneve r on e wishe d t o indicat e th e failure t o transmi t completel y th e inne r experienc e o r inklin g i n th e outer appearance , th e imag e o f th e hieroglyp h offere d itsel f a s a meta phor endowe d wit h th e authorit y an d myster y o f ancient , secre t wis dom. Th e languag e o f art , Wackenrode r said , i s "dark an d mysterious, " but i t ha s a marvelou s powe r ove r ou r min d an d experience . "I t speak s through picture s o f huma n being s and , therefore , make s us e o f a hieroglyphic script. " W e understan d th e symbol s o f thi s script , h e says , but onl y "i n thei r externa l aspect " (119) . Al l thi s reinforce s th e sensa tion o f th e unbridgeabl e ga p betwee n wha t i s t o b e sai d an d ou r abilit y to sa y it . A s a revelatio n o f th e divine , th e paintin g i s a s insufficien t a s the text . Wha t i t ca n d o i s to sti r ou r emotions . Ar t "fuse s spiritua l an d representational qualities " i n suc h a "touchin g an d admirabl e manne r that, i n response , ou r entir e bein g an d everythin g abou t u s i s stirre d and affecte d deeply " (119) . Th e wor k o f art , lik e th e hieroglyph , doe s not full y revea l th e divine , bu t i t affect s ou r emotiona l being . I f the paintin g i s no t a tru e revelation , i t i s an d remain s a n expressiv e artifact. 304

The Artist 4. SOLGE R

The developmen t of reflectio n o n ar t i s a comple x process , an d i t sometimes yield s surprisin g results . Thu s i t occasionall y happen s tha t the mos t perfec t expressio n o f a n intellectua l leanin g o r a tren d o f thought i s foun d outsid e th e mainstrea m an d th e grea t school s con sidered representativ e o f tha t leanin g o r trend . Thi s seem s als o t o b e true for th e Romantics ' idea o f th e artist' s creativ e imagination . Karl Friedric h Wilhel m Solge r (1780-1819) , a n importan t figure i n the histor y o f Romanti c aesthetics , stray s markedl y fro m th e mai n current o f Germa n philosoph y i n th e ag e betwee n Kan t an d Hegel ; h e also diverge s significantl y fro m th e traditio n o f th e painters ' reflection s on thei r art , a s w e kno w the m fro m hi s contemporaries , Rung e an d Caspar David Friedrich . Bu t although Solge r stands alone, hi s discussio n of th e artist' s creativ e imaginatio n i s perhap s th e mos t enthrallin g on e bequeathed b y Romanticism t o succeedin g generations . Wha t h e ha s t o say on thi s proble m als o reveals, more tha n does any other treatmen t o f the theme , th e questions an d paradoxes tha t remained without solution . Thus, thoug h remainin g outsid e th e mainstream , Solger' s though t i s a landmark i n the developmen t o f aestheti c reflectio n a t a crucial stag e i n its development . Solger's majo r work , Erwin: Vier Gesprdcbe uber das Schone und die Kunst (Erwin: Fou r Dialogue s o n th e Beautifu l an d o n Art) , appeared i n i8i£ . His Vorlesungen uber Aesthetik (Lecture s o n Aesthetics ) appeared , posthu mously, i n 1829. 22 Th e Erwin, in man y respect s a strang e work , refer s obliquely t o som e contemporar y discussions , bu t th e autho r neve r tell s us clearl y wha t precisel y the y were . Although th e boo k i s cas t i n th e form o f a dialogu e (a s th e subtitle announces) , it s styl e i s sometime s abstract an d obscure , whic h doe s no t mak e i t eas y fo r th e moder n reader t o mak e ou t wha t thes e discussion s were . Solge r i s a deductiv e thinker wh o trie s t o deriv e comple x result s fro m origina l bu t ver y general truths ; the Erwin i s perhaps th e first deductive aesthetic s eve r t o be published . I t i s tru e tha t thi s work , lik e Solger' s syste m i n general , has littl e actuall y t o offe r b y wa y o f explainin g specifi c painting s o r sculptures, bu t th e idea s i t proposes—albei t i n a n abstrac t an d philo 3°S

Modern Theories of Art sophic language—mak e a n importan t contributio n t o ou r understand ing o f Romantic , an d modern , theor y o f th e visua l arts . A central concep t i n Solger' s system , a notion fro m whic h h e trie s t o derive al l th e others , i s "imagination " (Phantasie). Now , th e notio n o f imagination, w e hav e ha d ampl e occasio n t o see , wa s frequentl y em ployed i n aestheti c discussion s o f Romanticism , bu t severa l rathe r different thing s coul d b e mean t b y it . Solger , too , ha s mor e tha n jus t one readin g o f th e term . H e distinguishe s imaginatio n (Phantasie) fro m imaginative powe r (Einbildungskraft). Th e latte r i s a facult y o f th e sou l that, "departin g fro m th e rea l thing s an d ou r experienc e o f thei r appearances, shape s fro m thi s materia l specifi c figures accordin g t o ou r needs" (ioo). 23 I n othe r words , whil e "imaginativ e power " i s seemingl y a productiv e faculty , i t i s wholly subordinate d t o ou r natura l drive s an d passions (ou r "nature, " on e migh t say) , an d i t derive s it s materia l fro m our individua l sensua l experienc e o f nature . Imagination prope r (Phantasie) i s give n a different , rathe r speculativ e interpretation. Possibl y followin g som e eighteenth-centur y leads, 24 Sol ger attempt s t o se t apar t a "higher " productiv e imaginatio n fro m mer e "imaginative power. " Onl y imaginatio n i s th e orga n o f art . T o b e sure , higher imaginatio n encompasse s mor e tha n ar t alone . Fo r Solger , a s fo r some othe r Romanti c thinkers , art an d religio n ar e linke d t o eac h other , and thei r commo n bon d i s als o reflecte d i n th e fac t tha t imaginatio n i s their commo n organ . Solge r conceive s imaginatio n prope r a s th e mirro r image o f divin e creativity . "Th e powe r withi n u s tha t correspond s t o the divin e creativ e power , o r rathe r i n whic h th e divin e power s com e to rea l existenc e i n th e worl d o f appearances , i s imagination " (199) . Imagination, s o say s Erwin , th e primar y interlocuto r i n th e dialogu e that bear s hi s name , i s a "rea l [human ] activit y tha t i s th e revelatio n o f a divin e one " (309). Imagination, bridgin g th e ga p betwee n th e infinit e an d th e finite, ha s two faces , a s i t were , or , i f yo u prefer , i t move s i n tw o opposit e directions. A s "religiou s consciousness, " i t i s oriente d toward s th e "innermost o f th e divine, " i t tend s toward s Go d himself ; a s "artisti c consciousness," i t i s a n outpourin g fro m th e "innermos t o f th e divine " into th e world , an d i t bring s ou t a whol e cosmo s o f fantasti c figures and shape s (307) . Th e actio n o f th e imagination , then , i s no t subjec t t o 306

The Artist the arbitrarines s o f huma n decision . A s it encompasse s th e revelatio n o f the divine , it s power s go beyon d thos e o f th e huma n artist. I t is for thi s reason tha t Solge r ca n cal l th e religiou s an d th e artisti c consciousnes s "the prophet s an d interpreters o f God " (210). The artist's task is to catch the images in the fantasy and to transfor m them int o stabl e object s tha t w e (th e audience ) ca n perceiv e b y ou r senses. Bu t th e wor k o f art , s o i t follow s fro m Solger' s thought , i s no t simply th e result , o r product , o f imagination , a product divorce d fro m the activit y tha t brough t i t int o being . Imaginatio n a s a livin g motion , as a proces s o f unceasin g creation , mus t someho w b e presen t i n th e completed work . T o b e sure, i t i s difficult fo r u s to se e thi s unity of th e cast form—th e wor k o f art—an d th e livin g motion , th e creativ e fantasy. Bu t thi s difficulty only show s ho w wea k our perception is . That we distinguis h betwee n th e ide a and the wor k o f art—this, Solge r says, merely derive s fro m th e natur e o f ou r thinkin g (218) . Bu t i n fac t th e work o f ar t constantl y refer s t o th e ac t o f creation . I t i s for thi s reaso n that w e conceiv e o f th e wor k o f ar t a s o f a symbol . u In thi s sense, " Erwin say s t o hi s partne r i n th e dialogue , u all ar t is symbolic." But a s if to preclud e an y othe r interpretations , h e adds : u but i n thi s sens e only " (218-219).

The symbo l i s a crucia l notio n i n Solger' s thought . A grea t dea l o f his aestheti c syste m rest s o n th e distinctio n betwee n wha t h e call s symbol an d allegory , a distinctio n no t unknow n a t th e time . Th e philosopher Schelling , generall y considere d t o b e Solger' s maste r (thoug h the relationshi p betwee n the m seem s t o hav e bee n rathe r complex) , suggested a differentiation betwee n schema , allegory , an d symbol. 25 Bu t while Schellin g conceive s o f th e tria d as "general categories, " applicable to a wide variet y o f phenomen a (nature , science) , Solge r limits the m t o art. Symbol an d allegory, Solge r believes , ar e universa l mode s o f art . Th e difference betwee n the m i s no t on e o f value—th e on e i s no t bette r o r worse tha n th e other ; i t i s a difference o f nature . Th e symbo l include s "not only th e complete d work , bu t als o th e lif e an d activit y o f th e forces [tha t brough t i t about ] themselves" (223). I t is, then, th e unit y o f the thin g an d th e motion , o f th e produc t an d th e production . Allegory , on th e othe r hand , i s close r t o wha t w e woul d toda y cal l a sign . Th e 307

Modern Theories of Art dividing lin e betwee n thes e tw o modes o f imaging an d depicting, Solge r stresses, ca n rarely , i f ever, b e sharply drawn. 26 Wha t h e mean s b y thi s distinction, particularl y wit h regar d t o th e visua l arts , ca n bes t b e see n in hi s discussion o f the examples h e adduces . "In th e symbol w e have a n objec t i n which th e activity ha s saturate d and exhauste d itself ; th e material , b y lettin g u s perceiv e th e activity , gives u s th e feelin g o f calm an d perfection, " say s Solge r i n th e Vorlesungen iiber Aesthetik (130). Suc h object s wer e created , i n pures t form , b y the Greeks . The Greeks di d not create "pur e form s [or ] pure concepts, " the direction s int o whic h th e Ide a disintegrates ; the y create d "liv e persons, define d fro m al l sides," he says in Erwin (227) . "And what else, " he continues , "i s th e essenc e o f th e symbo l i f no t tha t intimat e an d inseparable blendin g o f th e general an d th e particula r int o on e an d th e same reality? " In th e allegor y th e relationshi p betwee n th e general an d th e particu lar i s different . Th e "intimat e an d inseparabl e blending " i s gone , an d instead w e hav e her e a fallin g apar t o f th e tw o components . Solge r stresses tha t th e individua l objec t doe s no t necessaril y stan d fo r th e general idea ; a generic objec t ca n also stand fo r a particular idea . To use his examples: a particular nai l can stand fo r the general ide a o f necessity, but a huma n figure—in itself , th e mos t genera l imag e i n art—ca n stand fo r a particular cit y (Vorlesungen, 13 3 ff). Essential , then , i s not the direction, bu t th e fac t tha t th e tw o components d o no t overlap . Thi s i s best mad e manifes t i n Christia n art . Th e idea , o r th e genera l meaning , goes fa r beyon d th e specifi c figure tha t represent s it . The supremac y o f the ide a ove r th e figure, o f the general ove r th e particular, characterize s "modern," tha t is , Christian , art . T o b e sure , a Christia n allegorica l figure i s no t jus t a "sign, " th e relationshi p betwee n the m i s no t arbitrary, bu t i t live s i n a cleavage. Symbol an d allegory , w e shoul d remember , ar e not onl y characteris tic o f grea t historica l periods ; the y ar e als o alway s course s o f th e imagination. Th e artist, i n principle, ca n approach reality , o r his subject , in a symbolic o r a n allegorical mode .

308

The Artist II. TH E PAINTER S I. TH E CHARACTE R O F TH E ARTISTS ' STATEMENT S

Romantic poet s an d philosophers , critic s an d literati , whe n discoursin g about art , see m t o hav e move d o n a n exalte d plane . Ye t th e ai r around them, on e canno t hel p feeling , wa s rathe r thin . The y claime d fo r th e ideas the y pronounce d a n almos t universa l validity ; th e notion s the y employed wer e world-embracing . Ye t ofte n i t seem s tha t the y hav e little t o d o wit h th e wor k o f ar t a s a real object , o r wit h th e painter' s job, a s w e al l kno w it . Wha t then , on e asks , di d th e artist s themselve s have t o sa y t o thi s intellectua l an d emotiona l spiritualizatio n o f thei r craft? Romantic reflectio n o n paintin g i s not o f a kind t o yield a simple, clear-cut answer . An d ye t on e canno t hel p formulatin g certai n ques tions. In studyin g th e text s writte n b y th e artist s themselves , on e agai n encounters ambiguou s attitude s an d statements. O n the one hand, many painters aroun d 180 0 were reflectiv e an d articulate . A sophisticated us e of words , i n bot h ora l an d writte n form , wa s commo n amon g them . Moreover, the y obviousl y fel t th e nee d t o account , t o themselve s a s well a s t o thei r audiences , fo r thei r aim s an d striving s an d t o explai n the principle s tha t informe d thei r efforts . O n th e othe r hand , the y di d not writ e systemati c expositions , no r di d the y se t fort h thei r view s i n an orderly an d didacti c manner . Thei r literar y legacy , a s w e no w kno w it, ma y b e voluminou s a t times , bu t i t i s made u p primaril y o f persona l documents, suc h a s letters , diar y entries , an d confessions . I t i s no t surprising, then , tha t afte r studyin g man y suc h confession s w e stil l fee l the same , o r a n eve n greater , vaguenes s tha n th e on e w e experience d when w e rea d the statement s o f th e philosophers . Some artists , t o b e sure , di d presen t thei r view s o n paintin g i n a didactic fashion . A n importan t exampl e i s Henr y Fuseli' s Lectures on Painting, give n a t th e Roya l Academ y i n Londo n durin g th e earl y year s of th e nineteent h century , an d publishe d posthumousl y i n 1830. 27 Her e we hav e a great, origina l Romanti c painte r sharin g with u s his view s o n his art . Naturall y on e open s thi s boo k wit h grea t expectations , an d so , one assumes , man y reader s mus t hav e don e i n th e earl y nineteent h 309

Modern Theories of Art century. However , one' s expectatio n o f a n insider' s treatmen t o f wha t is specifi c t o Romanti c paintin g i s boun d t o b e disappointed . Fusel i closely follow s th e pattern s o f Renaissanc e treatise s o n art ; h e discusse s the topic s inherite d fro m previou s centuries , an d h e treat s the m i n th e same order i n which the y ha d bee n treate d i n th e lat e sixteent h century . After invokin g th e authorit y o f th e ancient s an d particularl y emphasiz ing th e significanc e o f Quintilian , h e survey s th e histor y o f ancien t an d "modern'' art , rehearsin g th e Quarre l betwee n th e Ancient s an d th e Moderns. Paintin g itsel f i s treate d unde r th e traditiona l heading s o f invention, composition , an d expression , chiaroscuro , design , an d color , the presentatio n reachin g a conclusio n i n a treatmen t o f th e huma n figure. Ha d ar t change d a t al l sinc e th e day s o f Lomazz o an d th e Venetian writer s o n painting ? Wer e w e t o judg e b y wha t Fusel i tell s u s in hi s Lectures, w e woul d hardl y b e abl e t o gues s th e profoun d upheava l of whic h hi s ow n wor k i s suc h a n eloquen t illustration . Fuseli' s treatis e is representativ e o f th e rathe r rar e attempt s mad e b y artist s o f th e Romantic er a t o provid e a n overal l syste m o f art . I f w e ar e lookin g fo r the painters ' view s o n wha t wa s perceive d a s ne w an d urgent , o f wha t really concerne d the m a t thi s crucia l stage , w e shal l hav e t o renounc e the comfor t o f systemati c presentations . I t i s th e persona l document , sometimes confused , an d ofte n employin g a privat e languag e an d sym bolism, tha t hold s th e ke y t o th e intellectua l worl d o f th e Romanti c painters. 2. RUNG E

Among th e mos t importan t witnesse s o f th e artists ' though t i s th e German painte r Philip p Ott o Rung e (1777-1810) . Hi s Hinterlassene Schriften (Literary Remains ) consis t mainl y o f letter s an d persona l notes , an d contain onl y a fe w fragment s o f a systemati c doctrin e o f color . I n th e simple sense , then , w e d o no t hav e a "theory" b y Runge, tha t is , a bod y of though t presente d i n th e for m h e woul d hav e wishe d u s t o read . This fragmentar y stat e o f presentatio n shoul d no t mislea d us , however . Like som e othe r artist s o f hi s time , Rung e ha d a profoun d nee d fo r reflection an d intellectua l understandin g o f art , an d h e strov e t o cas t his idea s an d observation s int o a coherent patter n o f thought . 310

The Artist The desir e fo r a systemati c understandin g o f ar t wa s th e Romanti c artist's natura l respons e t o contemporar y perception s o f historica l crisi s and instability . Rung e wa s awar e o f ho w questionable , perhap s eve n hollow, wer e th e model s tha t academi c wisdo m wa s stil l holdin g u p t o artists for imitation . Coul d classica l art , presente d b y Winckelmann an d Mengs a s the great model, actuall y perfor m th e redemptiv e miracl e tha t some critic s an d teacher s expecte d o f it ? "W e ar e no t Greek s an y more," note s Runge , "w e ca n n o longe r perceiv e th e whol e whe n w e see thei r perfec t work s o f art . . . . (1,6). 28 In earlier periods, th e cultura l basis an d th e socia l contex t o f ar t wer e take n fo r granted , bu t no w doubt ha s bee n cas t o n them . Bot h wha t ar t shoul d d o an d ho w i t should tr y t o d o i t wer e n o longe r a matter o f course . Wha t thi s stat e of affair s seeme d t o requir e o f th e artis t was , firs t o f all , a serious effor t to firmly rebuil d th e intellectua l basi s o f ar t an d t o understan d it s rea l and prope r context . The painter' s attemp t t o mak e ou t hi s aim s a s clearly as possible an d to realiz e what h e could , o r could not , achiev e i n his art became a task tha t wa s perceive d a s urgent. Let u s begi n wit h th e broades t context . Rung e di d no t conside r ar t as a domain, o r a value, i n it s ow n right . Fo r all hi s Romanti c flirtation with th e "religio n o f art, " h e firmly believe d tha t th e paintin g o r th e piece o f sculptur e canno t s and alone ; the y mus t occup y thei r proper place i n a comprehensiv e worl d pictur e i n orde r t o fulfil l thei r prope r function. I n a not e datin g fro m 1802 , h e outlined , i n te n points , wha t he calle d "th e requirement s o f art. " This outlin e bring s Rung e a s clos e to a n encompassin g syste m o f though t a s h e eve r attained . Bot h th e points themselve s an d thei r sequenc e ar e significant . Her e i s th e rol e i n extenso: 1) Ou r presentimen t o f God; 2) th e perceptio n o f ourselve s i n connectio n wit h th e whole , an d arising from thes e two : 3) religio n an d art ; that is , t o expres s ou r highes t emotion s b y words , tones, o r pictures ; and her e th e visua l art s i n th e first plac e searc h for: 4) subject ; the n g) composition , 3"

Modern Theories of Art 6) drawing , 7) coloristi c character , 8) posture , 9) colors . 10) tone . (1,13-H )

These te n points , on e sees , ar e compose d o f thre e groups : first th e intellectual foundation s an d context s o f ar t (1-3) , the n th e subjec t matter o f th e wor k o f ar t (4) , an d finally th e forma l component s o f which i t consist s (£—10) . The intellectual , o r philosophical , foundation s are essentia l no t onl y fo r a n understandin g o f th e wor k o f ar t but , firs t of all, for it s production . "I n m y opinion, " say s Runge , "n o wor k o f ar t can com e int o bein g i f th e artis t di d no t star t ou t fro m thes e first moments" (1,14) . No r shoul d th e wor k o f art , eve n a wor k o f religiou s art, b e deeme d t o b e a n en d i n itself . "Religio n i s no t art, " h e warns , perhaps eve n himself , "religio n i s th e highes t gif t o f God , ar t ca n onl y express i t mor e wonderfull y an d mor e intelligibly " (11,148). The religio n o f which Rung e speaks , however, i s not necessaril y wha t established institution s woul d accep t a s such. To b e sure , h e intend s th e God o f who m h e speak s t o b e th e Christia n God , an d occasionall y h e even quote s th e Bible . Bu t th e basi c featur e o f hi s religio n i s presenti ment, Ahnung, man's vague , intuitiv e perceptio n o f th e Divine . Ahnung is a subjectiv e experience , an d Runge' s religio n thu s rest s o n a psycholog ical foundation . I t i s th e subjectiv e perceptio n o f th e divine , th e reli gious experienc e rathe r tha n th e accepte d ecclesiastica l dogm a tha t i s reflected i n art . Moreover , ever y grea t wor k o f ar t reflect s ou r intuitio n of th e divine . "Th e mos t perfec t wor k o f art , whateve r els e i t ma y be , is the imag e o f the mos t profoun d presentimen t o f Go d i n th e ma n wh o produces it . Tha t is , i n ever y perfec t wor k o f ar t w e sens e ou r intimat e connection wit h th e universe " (II , 124) . Translated int o moder n speech , this means , first, tha t a paintin g i s "religious " whe n i t expresse s th e artist's religiou s experience , and , second , tha t religiou s experience , whatever tha t ma y mea n specifically , reflect s a feelin g o f relatednes s t o the universe . Runge take s ye t anothe r step . Whe n consistentl y though t through , this furthe r notio n wa s boun d t o hav e fatefu l consequence s fo r art . I n a 312

The Artist letter t o Pauline , hi s futur e wife , i n whic h h e tell s he r tha t h e intend s to devot e hi s lif e t o art , h e say s howeve r tha t art , too , u has valu e fo r me onl y insofa r a s i t give s m e a clea r notio n o f ou r grea t connectio n with God " (11,174/75-) . In a lette r t o hi s mother , h e write s tha t "wher e art i s no t on e with , an d indivisibl e from , th e inne r religio n o f man , there i t mus t decline , b e i t i n a n individua l perso n o r i n a whol e generation" (II , 122). Thes e statement s strik e u s a s strange . Ar e w e listening t o a medieva l monasti c preache r wh o wishe s t o limi t th e sphere an d autonom y o f art ? Bu t Rung e goe s eve n further . I n a lette r to hi s brothe r Daniel , writte n o n July 7 , 1808 , a letter tha t i s an exalte d panegyric o n th e lov e o f Christ , w e read : " I wis h i t wer e no t necessar y for m e t o pursu e art , becaus e w e shoul d g o beyon d art , an d i n eternit y one wil l no t kno w it " (11,223) . Fo r m y part , h e add s i n a persona l not e that remind s th e moder n reade r o f Bernar d o f Clairvaux , " I woul d no t need ar t coul d I liv e outsid e th e world , an d a s a hermit. " Art , then , i s devoid o f an y autonomy , i t doe s no t carr y it s valu e withi n itself . I t i s only a s a means t o a n en d tha t Rung e i s ready t o accep t art . From thi s poin t o f departure , i t i s eas y t o reac h th e conclusio n tha t art i s primaril y a language . This , o f course , wa s a n ide a commo n i n Romantic thought . Wha t thi s languag e i s t o expres s ar e emotions . Runge ha s mainl y religiou s emotion s an d experience s i n mind . A s wit h other Romanti c writers , h e consider s religiou s ar t a s no t necessaril y a n art representin g theme s fro m Scripture , o r producin g picture s fo r th e purposes o f ecclesiastica l institutions ; religiou s ar t i s a n ar t tha t ex presses religiou s emotions . Rung e considere d th e expressio n o f emo tions a basi c conditio n fo r th e valu e o f a wor k o f art . A s a youn g man , he wa s afrai d "t o los e emotions. " On e day , h e shuddered , h e migh t draw a fac e withou t emotion , "withou t ther e bein g somethin g els e besides eyes , mouth , an d nose " (11,32) . Emotions ar e particularl y essen tial an d comple x i n work s o f religiou s art . Religiou s emotions , i n Runge's view , deriv e mainl y fro m th e artist' s experiencin g o f nature . Nature i s th e grea t presenc e o f God , an d i t i s natura l tha t i t evoke s i n man th e powerfu l stirring s an d aw e tha t presenc e deserves . In conclu sion, ther e i s no conflic t betwee n th e religiou s natur e an d th e subjectiv e origin o f th e wor k o f art . Religiou s art , h e says , i s th e "languag e o f th e soul" (11,97). 3*3

Modern Theories of Art The specifi c topi c tha t playe d a centra l rol e i n Runge' s reflection s o n painting i s tha t o f ligh t an d color . I t occupie d hi s min d fo r man y years , his view s o n i t takin g shap e onl y gradually . I n hi s reflection s o n ligh t and color , w e ca n observ e ho w th e painter' s concer n merge s wit h th e symbolic doctrine s o f th e Middl e Age s an d th e Renaissance . Rung e wa s here particularl y influence d b y th e Germa n seventeenth-centur y mysti c Jakob Boehme , wit h whos e wor k h e becam e acquainte d throug h hi s friend th e poe t Ludwi g Tieck . Runge read s metaphor s o n ligh t a s wha t the y are , namely , symboli c expressions i n nee d o f interpretation ; bu t h e als o read s the m literally . Thus ligh t i s the physica l conditio n o f brightness, bu t i t i s also th e good ; darkness i s th e privatio n o f ligh t rays , bu t i t i s als o evil . I n readin g Runge, one constantl y ha s t o shif t fro m a literal t o a metaphorical sense , and bac k again . T o giv e bu t on e example , i n a lette r t o hi s father-in law, obviousl y writte n whil e th e lam p o n hi s des k wa s goin g out , h e wishes th e dayligh t wer e alread y there : "I t i s onl y a makeshift , thi s illumination b y light s pu t u p b y men , til l th e ligh t come s tha t shine s i n eternity amon g th e childre n o f man " (11,346) . Th e oscillatio n betwee n the simpl e objec t (th e lam p yo u tur n o n i n th e evening ) and th e spiritua l meaning ("th e ligh t tha t shine s i n eternity" ) i s typica l o f Runge' s thought. Probabl y n o othe r painte r i n th e earl y nineteent h centur y s o clearly perceive d th e spiritua l meanin g o f physica l light . Take, fo r instance , a statemen t suc h a s th e following : "Light , o r white, an d darkness , o r black , ar e no t colors , th e ligh t i s th e good , an d the darknes s i s evi l ( I refe r agai n t o th e [stor y o f the ] Creation) ; th e light w e canno t grasp , th e darknes s w e shoul d no t grasp " (1,17) . Th e historian, attemptin g t o trac e th e origin s o f thes e ideas , i s bewildered . The notio n tha t ligh t an d darkness , represente d b y whit e an d black , ar e not color s clearl y derive s fro m Renaissanc e worksho p doctrine. 29 Th e equation o f ligh t an d darknes s wit h goo d an d evil , particularl y wit h reference t o th e biblica l stor y o f creation , belong s t o a n altogethe r different real m o f thought , o f theologica l an d symboli c though t a s i t occurred i n mystica l movements . I n Runge' s min d al l thes e ar e lumpe d together i n a fashio n tha t make s i t hardl y possibl e t o separat e th e trends. He describe s th e contes t betwee n ligh t an d darknes s i n term s tha t 3*4

The Artist remind u s of an ancient mythica l theogony , bu t here the y are permeate d both b y moralizin g metaphor s an d b y plai n pictoria l experience . "Th e light, whe n i t i s ignited , first gives a ver y smal l glimmer , an d darknes s pushes i t bac k unt o itself ; i t i s no les s true , nevertheless , tha t i t is a fire and a tru e light . Darknes s canno t destro y light , bu t ligh t i s abl e t o scatter untruthfulnes s an d falseness unt o th e four winds . The one spar k that heave n gav e u s ca n gro w an d thriv e an d becom e a great fire tha t scares awa y predator y beasts , an d ruin s th e enem y i n th e dwelling s o f his ow n stupidity" (11,203) . Many o f thes e metaphor s see m overtl y literary , an d ye t i t ma y b e that hi s very fascinatio n wit h ligh t an d colo r reveal s a painter's ey e and mind. Wackenroder , w e remember , showe d littl e interes t i n th e work s and charm s o f light an d color i n art. To him, they wer e onl y "externals' ' (Aussenwerke) o f art , n o mor e deservin g o f greate r attentio n tha n othe r "externals" deserve . S o fa r a s h e note d coloristi c effect s a t all , the y were effect s o f light an d atmospher e i n nature , suc h a s a sunset, no t i n painting. Runge , a s w e hav e seen , i s i n man y respect s quit e clos e t o Wackenroder, bu t h e differ s fro m hi m completel y i n hi s attitud e t o light an d color . For many year s Rung e mad e intens e attempt s t o build up, and clearly articulate, hi s doctrin e o f color . Thes e effort s reache d a pea k whe n h e composed hi s Farbenkugel (1,112-128) , precede d b y a fragmen t o n th e same subjec t writte n i n 180 6 (1,84—112) . W e shal l no t discus s th e development o f hi s view s o n color , bu t shal l instea d trea t the m a s i f they wer e o f one cast . Color, Rung e claims , i s th e las t par t o f ar t tha t stil l strike s u s a s mystical, an d i t wil l foreve r remai n so . Tha t mystica l natur e follow s from th e uniqu e positio n o f colo r i n th e orde r o f things , an d fro m th e function i t ha s bee n assigned . Ligh t itself , a s we hav e seen , ma n canno t grasp, an d darknes s h e shoul d not . Betwee n thes e tw o pole s lie s color . Runge compare s colo r t o th e revelation o f an invisibl e god. "Revelatio n was give n t o man, " h e says , "colo r cam e int o th e world " (1,17) . B y color h e mean s th e thre e basi c hues , blue , red , and yellow . Ligh t i s the sun, a t whic h w e canno t gaze . Bu t whe n th e su n incline s "toward s th e earth, o r t o man, the sky turns red . Blue keep s u s in a certain awe , that is th e father, an d re d i s th e mediator between eart h an d heaven ; whe n 3i£

Modern Theories of Art both disappear , the n comes , i n th e night , th e fire, thi s i s the yello w an d the consoler, tha t i s sent t o u s — t h e moon , too , i s only yellow " (1,17). Runge trie d t o wor k ou t a comprehensiv e an d coheren t colo r scal e that woul d als o b e a symboli c system . T o thi s en d h e combine d th e literary traditio n commo n i n Germa n mysticis m (particularl y i n Jako b Boehme) o f readin g colo r a s an indicatio n o f meaning wit h th e painter' s intimate familiarit y wit h chromati c tone s an d shade s an d th e emotiona l effects the y ar e suppose d t o have . Suc h attempt s ha d bee n mad e before.30 Wha t i s perhap s especiall y characteristi c o f Runge' s effor t i s that no t onl y doe s i t attribut e meaning s t o th e individua l hues ; the ver y order o f th e specifi c color s withi n th e schem e i s accounte d fo r b y th e structure o f th e symboli c system . I n th e histor y o f colo r scales , suc h a full merge r o f sensua l qualitie s an d symboli c characteristic s i s ver y rar e indeed. Between whit e an d black , tha t is , betwee n ligh t an d darkness , ther e are, a s w e know , onl y thre e basi c hues—blue , red , an d yellow . Eac h o f these ha s a distinc t expressiv e character ; i n othe r words , i t evoke s a distinct emotiona l effec t i n th e spectator . A t th e sam e time , however , each o f thes e color s manifest s a specifi c level , o r aspect , o f th e "objec tive" structur e o f th e divinity , a structur e tha t doe s no t depen d o n ou r experiences. Blue , Runge declares , indicates Go d th e Father . Th e histor ical convention s o f th e iconograph y o f colors , t o sa y th e least , d o no t unequivocally bea r ou t ou r artist' s belief . Why , then , doe s h e make blu e the colo r o f Go d th e Fathe r i f h e canno t rel y o n wha t i s generall y accepted i n th e histor y o f painting ? What seem s t o follo w fro m Runge' s thought suggest s tha t th e answe r als o doe s no t resul t fro m theologica l considerations. I t i s rathe r th e expressiv e effec t o f blu e tha t provide s the solution . "Blu e keep s u s i n certai n awe , tha t i s th e father" (1,17) . Because th e emotiona l effec t o f blu e i s t o creat e awe , an d thu s t o distance th e spectato r fro m wha t i s represented , i t i s th e colo r mos t fitting tha t aspec t o f th e divinit y fro m whic h w e ar e mos t removed . T o be sure , Rung e doe s no t explai n hi s intentio n i n simple , straightforwar d words, bu t thi s seem s th e mos t likel y interpretation . Red, h e goes o n t o say , "i s normall y th e mediato r betwee n eart h an d heaven." Now , placin g re d i n th e cente r o f th e colo r scale , betwee n white an d black , ha s a lon g history . Italia n sixteenth-centur y doctrine s 316

The Artist of color , compose d b y bot h painter s an d scientists , clai m thi s positio n for red. 31 Runge , however , goe s beyon d th e Renaissanc e doctrines : re d is no t onl y i n th e middl e betwee n th e end s o f th e colo r scale , i t i s th e active "mediator " betwee n th e tw o poles . Re d ma y hav e derive d thi s role o f activ e mediato r fro m bein g th e colo r o f Christ . A s Chris t mediates betwee n ma n an d God , s o red , hi s color , mediate s betwee n light an d darkness . Tha t re d i s the colo r o f Chris t i s not onl y a piec e o f conventional iconography ; i t wa s als o explicitl y asserte d i n Runge' s circle, mainl y b y th e poe t Tieck. 32 What Rung e ha s t o sa y about yello w i s surprising. I t ha s alway s bee n accepted tha t yellow , togethe r wit h re d an d blue , belong s t o th e basi c colors. Bu t view s hav e differe d widel y a s t o wha t i t means . Yello w wa s the colo r o f gold , bu t i t wa s als o th e colo r o f slander , o f th e prostitut e and th e Jew . Rung e grant s yellow—th e fire i n th e night , th e compas sionate m o o n — a nobl e character , fo r i t mus t b e par t o f th e chromati c manifestation o f th e Trinity . Agai n i t wa s Tiec k wh o conceive d o f th e moon a s th e consoler , bu t Rung e embodie s thi s psychologica l interpre tation i n th e spher e o f religiou s imagery . Th e moon , h e say s a littl e later, u is th e consoler , th e Hol y Spirit " (1,41). 3. FRIEDRIC H

The grea t painte r o f Germa n Romanticism , Caspe r Davi d Friedric h (1774-1840), i s anothe r importan t witnes s o f ho w Romanti c attitude s were perceive d b y th e artist s o f th e time . Hi s note s ar e fragmentary , perhaps eve n mor e s o tha n Runge's , an d the y consis t i n par t o f hi s friend's record s o f th e conversation s h e ha d wit h them . Thi s stat e o f documentation doe s not , however , impai r th e clarit y o f thi s testimon y as t o th e concern s an d belief s o f th e Romanti c artist . Friedrich accept s th e spli t betwee n th e inne r an d oute r vision , th e being withi n ma n an d th e worl d outsid e him , a s a matte r o f course . This split , i n fact , form s th e basi s o f his reflection s o n art . Th e artist , h e believed, ha s a n "innermos t consciousness " (innerstes Bewusstsein). Lik e Wackenroder an d som e othe r Romantics , h e conceive s o f th e artist' s inward spiritua l lif e a s a toke n o f th e divin e presenc e i n man . "Follo w unconditionally th e voic e o f you r inne r self, " Friedric h admonishe s hi s 3i7

Modern Theories of Art fellows, o r possibl y himself , "becaus e thi s i s the divin e i n us , and i t doe s not lea d u s astray . Kee p sacre d ever y pur e movemen t o f you r soul , keep sacre d an y piou s presentiment " (p . 83). 33 The artis t shoul d follo w this inne r cal l o f hi s inne r sel f becaus e "th e onl y tru e sourc e o f ar t i s our heart. " Caspar Davi d Friedrich , a s on e knows , wa s a landscap e painter , an d we hav e alread y see n tha t h e believe d tha t landscape , tha t is , "nature, " is th e mos t worth y subjec t o f painting. 34 Nevertheless , h e stresse s tim e and agai n tha t th e wor k o f ar t flows fro m th e artist , no t fro m th e nature depicted . B y making "ou r heart " th e onl y origi n o f th e wor k o f art, Friedric h rejects , eve n i f onl y implicitly , a n age-ol d clai m inherite d from th e Renaissance : th e clai m tha t nature , th e worl d surroundin g us , is full o f form s an d shapes , an d tha t i t i s these shape s tha t stimulat e th e creative process . Leon e Battist a Albert i opene d hi s treatis e o n sculptur e with th e bol d statemen t tha t th e artist , stimulate d b y th e half-articulat e forms h e encounter s i n th e natur e surroundin g him , notice s that , wit h only sligh t changes , thes e shape s ca n b e turne d int o artisti c representa tions. 35 I n a sense , then , h e make s natur e hersel f a partner , i f no t th e major origin , i n th e creatio n o f th e wor k o f art . Thi s attitud e change d radically aroun d 1800 . Fo r Friedric h th e Romanti c landscap e painter , nature i s n o longe r "ful l o f form. " T o b e sure , "ever y manifestatio n o f Nature, recorde d wit h precision , wit h dignity , an d wit h feelin g ca n become th e subjec t matte r o f art. " Bu t note : i t i s th e subjec t matter , not th e origi n o f art . Moreover , eve n i n suc h faithfu l an d dignifie d recording o f nature , i t i s th e artist' s emotio n tha t count s an d tha t should b e manifested . "I t i s not th e faithfu l representatio n o f air , water , rocks, an d tree s tha t i s the tas k o f th e painter, " Friedric h notes , "rathe r his sou l an d hi s emotion s shoul d b e reflecte d i n i t [th e landscap e picture]." A studen t i n th e latte r hal f o f th e twentiet h centur y canno t hel p noticing ho w frequentl y Friedric h speak s o f th e "unconscious. " Clearl y our artis t picture d th e sou l a s consistin g o f layers , one place d o n to p o f the other . Th e uppe r layer s thu s cover , an d hide , th e lowe r ones . Thi s image o f th e sou l surel y ha s somethin g t o d o wit h Carus' s psychology , but i t ma y als o hav e bee n derive d fro m othe r source s o f Romanti c philosophy. Thu s Schelling , i n hi s lectur e "O n th e relationshi p betwee n 318

The Artist the visual art s and nature," speaks of an "unconscious force " (bewusstlose Kraft) in th e artist' s soul . I n the artist' s consciou s production , thi s forc e acts togethe r wit h hi s reflectiv e though t an d wit h hi s skill. 36 Friedric h makes th e unconsciou s emotio n th e centra l motivatin g forc e i n th e creative process . " A feeling , darkl y intuiting , an d rarel y full y clea r t o the artis t himself , alway s underlie s hi s pictures " (p. 89) . Friedrich extol s th e significanc e o f th e unconsciou s fo r th e artist , o f the underlyin g stratu m tha t i s covere d b y th e upper , consciou s layers . The unconsciou s emotions , h e believes , ar e superior t o analytica l think ing an d logica l procedures . Th e unconsciou s i s concerne d wit h subject s other tha n thos e tha t fill ou r consciou s thought , an d th e forme r ar e inherently superio r t o th e latter . Addressin g Go d o r Nature , h e ex claims: "You gave us comprehension an d reason to investigate an d grasp things terrestrial , bu t t o kno w thing s celestia l yo u gav e u s a heart, an d put withi n u s high presentiments." 37

III. POSITIVIS M I. TURNIN G T O TH E OUTSID E WORL D

Romantic view s o f what make s an artist an d of how h e operates posite d introspection a s a major roa d t o artisti c creation . Bot h th e literar y me n and th e painter s ha d littl e us e fo r th e "outside " realit y o f th e materia l objects tha t surroun d us . Whil e i n thei r painting s th e Romanti c artist s may hav e take n carefu l accoun t o f materia l realities , the y disregarde d them i n thei r theories . The artis t create s hi s work , the y believed , b y focusing o n hi s inne r vision , an d therefor e makin g th e image s o f th e objects aroun d hi m int o "ra w material " t o b e shifte d aroun d an d transformed accordin g t o hi s expressiv e needs . Thu s th e landscap e became a field for th e projectio n o f emotions . Nature , a s we hav e seen , had becom e s o spiritualize d i n Romanti c though t tha t it s material , objective characte r wa s almos t dissolved . Socia l an d historica l realitie s also pla y a mino r par t i n Romanti c though t o n art . Whe n a socia l reality i s referre d t o (a s i n Wackenroder' s descriptio n o f Durer) , i t becomes almos t openl y Utopian , mythological. I s the depictio n tru e an d 3i9

Modern Theories of Art correct? Th e questio n doe s no t arise . Perhap s nothin g s o wel l illustrate s the distanc e th e theor y o f ar t ha s travele d sinc e th e Renaissanc e tha n the Romantics ' lac k o f concer n wit h objectiv e an d demonstrabl e truth . In Renaissanc e culture , a s i t wel l known , a n importan t tas k o f ar t wa s to presen t a "true " recor d o f a given piec e o f th e world . Th e theor y o f art wa s suppose d t o provid e th e rule s an d procedure s tha t woul d ensur e the correctnes s o f th e representation . O n th e fac e o f it , Romanti c thought continue d Renaissanc e ideas , an d eve n employe d Renaissanc e terminology. Ye t som e o f th e fundamenta l assumption s wit h regar d t o both th e artis t an d th e spectato r ha d radicall y changed . Th e picture , the statue , o r th e poe m ar e no w presume d t o b e revelation , eithe r o f the divin e spar k i n th e artist' s sou l o r o f hi s uniqu e experiences . Th e theory o f art adjuste d t o thes e ne w conditions . The suggestive , evocativ e description replace d th e rationall y argue d reasoning . Awareness o f "outside, " materia l realit y an d recognitio n o f it s signif icance fo r th e productio n an d understandin g o f ar t cam e bac k i n forc e in nineteenth-centur y culture . Whethe r thi s retur n t o a n acknowledg ment o f th e realitie s o f th e "world " an d thei r relevanc e fo r ar t wa s linked wit h th e dominan t tren d o f Positivism , o r whethe r i t derive d from othe r sources , i t remain s clea r tha t i n th e mid-nineteent h centur y reflection o n ar t wa s no t primaril y concerne d wit h som e "inner " lif e o f the artist , wit h vision s perceive d i n dreams , o r wit h th e experienc e o f a supernatural beauty . Instead , aestheti c though t turn s t o what , a t th e time, wer e frequentl y calle d "facts. " I t i s a n altogethe r differen t intel lectual climat e tha t no w set s in , an d i t i s ne w approache s tha t com e t o the fore . Th e problem s themselve s d o no t radicall y change .

2. TAIN E

An importan t representativ e o f the ne w tren d i s Hippolyte Tain e (1828— 1893), a versatil e an d prolifi c autho r whos e impac t o n th e late r nine teenth centur y wa s extensive . Characteristi c o f hi s aestheti c though t i s his exclusiv e concer n wit h th e arts . H e leave s n o roo m for , an d h e ha s no interes t in , beaut y a s such . " A ful l explanatio n o f th e fine arts, — this i s wha t on e call s aesthetics, " h e say s i n hi s openin g remark s i n th e 320

The Artist lectures o n ar t (I,n ) delivere d i n 186 ^ a t th e Pari s Ecol e de s Beau x Arts.38 Taine divide s th e art s int o tw o groups : one , calle d "th e representa tional arts, " consists o f painting , sculpture , an d poetry ; th e other , "th e mathematical arts, " i s mad e u p o f architectur e an d music . H e rejects , then, th e commo n linkag e o f paintin g an d sculptur e wit h architecture , an axio m bequeathe d b y th e Renaissanc e an d repeate d b y ever y gener ation since . Ou r author' s mai n interest , however , i s i n paintin g an d sculpture. Hi s criteri a o f judgment , i t ha s bee n suggested , ar e i n fac t inapplicable t o an y bu t th e representationa l arts. 39 In th e openin g sectio n o f hi s lecture s o n art , Hippolyt e Tain e proclaims tha t hi s "sol e dut y i s to offe r yo u facts , and to sho w yo u ho w these fact s ar e produced " (1,37) . Now , on e doe s no t hav e t o b e a philosopher t o se e tha t th e notio n o f "fact " i s ver y comple x an d problematic. Tain e himsel f coul d hardl y mak e u p hi s min d wha t pre cisely h e wa s referrin g t o i n usin g thi s term . Sometime s i t i s th e concrete, individua l paintin g tha t i s considere d a "fact, " sometime s certain type s o f procedur e ar e s o termed . B e tha t a s i t may , th e ver y orientation towar d fact s mark s th e powerfu l reactio n agains t th e legac y of Romanticism . I t i s a turning awa y fro m th e enclose d domai n o f th e subjective, "inner " experience. Taine wa s als o oppose d t o an y prescriptive , normativ e though t o n art. The moder n characte r o f hi s ow n thinkin g seeme d t o hi m t o li e i n its bein g descriptiv e rathe r tha n prescriptiv e o r dogmatic . H e himsel f thus characterizes hi s theory i n his opening remarks : "Ours i s modern," he says , "an d differ s fro m th e ancient , inasmuc h a s i t i s historic , an d not dogmatic ; tha t i s t o say , i t impose s n o precepts , bu t ascertain s an d verifies laws " (1,36) . H e doe s no t wis h t o giv e instruction s t o th e practicing artist , nor , fo r th e benefi t o f th e audienc e an d it s judgment , does h e wan t t o deriv e "goo d art " from suc h suprem e value s a s beauty. His thought , h e indicates , i s oppose d t o metaphysica l doctrine s tha t apply thei r idea s a s "u n articl e d e code " t o admonis h an d direc t th e productions o f work s o f art . H e want s t o attai n knowledg e tha t i s "purified" o f an y external—ethical , religious , o r metaphysical—con sideration o r coloring. I t is valu e neutralit y tha t seem s t o ensur e truth . The rejectio n o f an y prescriptiv e o r normativ e orientatio n o f ar t 321

Modern Theories of Art theory i s linke d t o th e scientisti c attitud e tha t loom s larg e i n Hippolyt e Taine's background . I n th e middl e o f th e nineteent h century , scientism , the desir e fo r systematic , precise , an d verifiabl e knowledge , t o b e achieved b y tota l abstentio n fro m interferenc e wit h wha t i s bein g studied, becam e a n importan t cultura l force , an d helpe d t o creat e a n intellectual climat e tha t affecte d though t i n man y disciplines . Taine' s generation, reachin g maturit y i n th e middl e o f th e century , wa s inter ested neithe r i n introspectio n no r i n rhetoric ; wha t i t wishe d t o kno w was wha t coul d b e learne d b y th e observatio n o f facts , no t onl y i n th e natural science s bu t als o i n th e stud y o f morality , religion , an d th e arts . The worl d o f ma n wa s t o b e studie d i n th e sam e wa y a s th e worl d o f nature. Total adherenc e t o th e realit y tha t ca n b e observe d disclose s a n affinity t o realis m i n art , an d t o imitatio n a s th e basi c theoretica l assumption. Tain e indee d believe s tha t imitatin g realit y i s a natural urg e in man , an d th e basi s o f al l expandin g an d flourishing art . Renouncin g reality an d precis e imitatio n i s a hallmar k o f decay . "Ever y schoo l ( I believe withou t exception ) degenerate s an d falls , simpl y throug h it s neglect o f exac t imitation , an d it s abandonmen t o f th e livin g model " (1,45)But i s exac t imitatio n o f realit y th e ultimat e ai m o f art ? I f tha t wer e the case , Tain e says , photograph y coul d b e expecte d t o produc e th e finest work s o f art . Thi s observatio n mus t b e on e o f th e earlies t references t o photograph y i n a n aestheti c discussio n o f "mimesis. " Taine, i n fact , i s no t obliviou s t o th e valu e o f photography . I t "i s undoubtedly a usefu l auxiliar y t o painting , an d i s sometime s tastefull y applied b y cultivate d an d intelligen t men ; bu t afte r all, " h e adds , "n o one think s o f comparin g i t wit h painting " (I,£i) . Slavis h imitation , suc h as h e deem s photograph y t o be , shoul d b e exclude d fro m th e real m o f art. Ho w then , on e asks , i s ar t t o b e imitation ? Th e answe r i s tha t th e artist shoul d no t imitat e everythin g h e sees . H e shoul d leav e ou t som e parts o f wha t h e encounter s an d imitat e onl y some—select—features . "It i s essential , then, " Tain e says , "t o closel y imitat e somethin g i n a n object; bu t no t everything " (1,^6) . I f yo u ignor e thi s deman d fo r selec tion, yo u mak e yoursel f guilt y o f a n "exces s o f litera l imitation " (I,£4) . I shal l no t her e discus s th e philosophica l implication s o f thi s advic e 322

The Artist to imitat e natur e selectively . Suc h a n imitatio n assume s tha t ar t doe s not follo w fro m natur e only , bu t als o fro m tha t forc e tha t direct s th e artist t o imitat e som e an d t o disregar d othe r feature s tha t h e experi ences i n reality . Thi s belief , an d th e philosophica l difficultie s i t implies , are a s ol d a s ar t theory. 40 Instea d o f dwellin g o n th e philosophica l problem, I shall as k a practical question : Wha t i s it tha t th e artis t should imitate? Taine's answe r i s explicit an d articulate, thoug h no t necessaril y clear . What th e artis t shoul d imitate , h e claims , i s "th e relationshi p an d mutual dependenc e o f parts " (1,^6). Ou r autho r i s of cours e awar e tha t this i s a n abstrac t definition , on e tha t lend s itsel f t o differen t readings . He therefor e trie s t o specif y an d explain. Th e artis t ha s to "reproduce " the "relationship s o f magnitude, " tha t is , th e proportion s h e finds i n nature. H e i s required t o imitat e th e "relationship s o f position, " that is, the form. "I n short," he addresses the artists who made up his audience, "your objec t i s t o reproduc e th e aggregat e o f relationship s b y whic h the part s ar e linke d together , an d nothin g else ; i t i s no t th e simpl e corporeal appearanc e tha t yo u hav e t o give , bu t th e logic of th e whol e body" (1,57). In wha t sense , then , i s th e "logi c o f th e body " a "fact" ? Surel y no t in the simple sens e of the word. N o one would claim that it is a tangible object, o r tha t i t i s plainly an d directly presen t i n empirical experience , as ar e othe r materia l objects . I t i s actuall y i n thi s contex t tha t Tain e places th e metaphysica l concep t o f "essences. " Th e concep t o f th e "essence," i t i s wel l known , doe s no t easil y agre e wit h th e scientisti c outlook. I n the intellectual climat e prevailin g i n mid-nineteenth-centur y France, essentia wa s considere d th e epitom e o f medieva l metaphysics , o f philosophical belief s goin g beyon d th e limit s o f empirica l observation . That Tain e use s thi s concep t doe s indee d indicat e th e deb t h e owe s t o metaphysics, an d particularl y t o Hegel. 41 B e tha t a s i t may , h e claim s that th e artist , "i n modifyin g th e relationship s o f parts , modifie s the m understandingly, purposely , i n suc h a wa y a s t o mak e apparen t th e essential character o f th e object , an d consequently it s leading ide a accord ing t o hi s conceptio n o f it " (1,64) . H e i s awar e o f th e metaphysica l implications o f wha t h e ha s just pronounced . Th e "essentia l character, " he explains, "i s what philosopher s cal l th e essence o f things." Our author 323

Modern Theories of Art does no t wan t t o retai n thi s suspiciou s term ; i t i s "technical" (1,64) . Bu t he retain s th e ide a expresse d i n it . I t i s th e artist' s ai m "t o manifes t a predominant character , som e salien t principa l quality , som e importan t point o f view , som e essentia l conditio n o f bein g i n th e objects " (1,64— 6^). In summarizin g hi s argument, h e come s bac k t o thi s point , stressin g the metaphysica l characte r o f th e artist' s function . "Th e en d o f a wor k of ar t i s t o manifes t som e essentia l o r salien t character , consequentl y some importan t idea , mor e clearl y an d mor e completel y tha n i s attain able fro m th e rea l object " (1,76) . Wha t th e artis t records , i t turn s out , is no t nature' s appearance , bu t som e deepe r laye r tha t i s no t availabl e to th e observin g eye . Th e wor k o f art , i t follow s b y implication , amounts t o a metaphysical statement . What i s i t tha t enable s th e artis t t o mak e suc h a statement ? T o rais e this questio n is , o f course , tantamoun t t o askin g wha t make s hi m a n artist. Tain e full y accept s th e traditiona l dictum , restate d countles s times sinc e th e Renaissance , tha t "artist s ar e born , no t trained. " Bu t h e tries t o defin e a little mor e closel y th e natur e o f th e gif t wit h whic h th e artist i s endowed a t birth . Taine's analysi s o f wha t make s a n artis t ma y a t first see m surprising . That h e doe s no t plac e specia l emphasi s o n virtuosity , technica l skill , and manua l dexterit y migh t hav e bee n expecte d a t a tim e whe n th e command o f technique , easil y acquire d i n establishe d schools , wa s no t much o f a rarity . Bu t h e als o doe s no t mentio n imagination , tha t is , th e faculty tha t conjure s up , o r produce s i n th e min d almos t a t will , figures and scenes , shape s an d object s tha t ar e no t presen t befor e ou r eyes . Instead, h e extol s a conditio n h e call s "origina l sensation. " Thi s i s a quality th e artis t bring s wit h hi m t o th e experienc e o f physica l reality . "In confrontin g objects, " Tain e says , "the artis t mus t experienc e original sensation" (1,73). Th e ter m "sensation " wa s no t unknow n i n th e philo sophical an d aestheti c languag e o f th e eighteent h an d nineteent h cen turies. I n it s broa d philosophica l use , i t is , i n France , perhap s bes t known fro m Condillac' s syste m o f sensationalism . Condillac' s theor y o f the origi n o f ideas , reducin g th e content s o f th e min d t o transforme d sensations, wa s a powerfu l influence , thoug h i t lef t littl e roo m fo r creativity, fo r th e artist' s spontaneou s productio n o f images. 42 The ter m was als o use d i n th e languag e o f aestheti c theor y an d o f ar t criticism . 3H

The Artist "Sensation" her e cam e t o indicat e th e materia l natur e portraye d i n painting,43 o r th e effec t th e paintin g ha s o n th e beholder. 44 Ye t wha t Taine mean s b y "sensation " correspond s t o neithe r o f thes e meanings . What h e wishe s t o describ e b y thi s ter m i s th e uniqu e intensit y an d character o f th e artist' s experiencin g o f nature , th e wa y h e perceive s any piec e o f outsid e reality . I t i s th e faculty , grante d t o th e artist , t o perceive wit h distinctio n an d directness th e abstrac t structure o f things. He "naturall y seize s an d distinguishes , wit h a sur e an d watchfu l tact , relationships an d shades " (1,74) . No r doe s th e powe r o f th e artist' s "sensation" sto p a t th e surfac e o f th e thing s perceived . Tain e endow s the artis t wit h som e kin d o f clairvoyance . Speakin g o f th e particula r "sensation" tha t characterize s th e artist , h e says : "Throug h thi s facult y he penetrate s t o th e ver y hear t o f things , an d seem s t o b e mor e clearsighted tha n othe r men " (1,74) . Moreover , th e artist' s "sensation " is not passive , waiting , lik e a piece o f wax, t o receiv e th e imprin t o f th e object perceived . "Thi s sensation, moreover , s o kee n an d so personal , i s not inactive. " Now, wha t i s tha t "no t inactive " original sensation ? "W e may ador n i t wit h beautifu l names; " Taine says , "w e ma y cal l i t geniu s or inspiration , whic h i s righ t an d proper ; bu t i f yo u wis h t o defin e i t precisely you mus t alway s verify therei n th e vivid spontaneous sensatio n which group s togethe r th e trai n o f accessor y ideas , masters , fashions , metamorphoses an d employs the m i n order t o becom e manifest " (1, 7 £). Today Taine' s nam e mainl y evoke s th e composit e notio n o f "race milieu-moment." I t wa s b y thes e thre e factor s tha t h e trie d t o explai n the emergenc e an d characte r o f th e grea t literar y an d artisti c creations . The formul a ha s bee n severel y criticized , an d no t muc h o f i t ha s survived i n moder n thought . The ter m "milieu, " however , ha s pre served it s usefulness , particularl y a s a n indicatio n o f th e ne w tren d o f thought Tain e represents . "Milieu, " a s Welle k says , "i s a catch-al l fo r the externa l condition s o f literature " and art. 45 I n using it , Tain e refer s to everythin g tha t can , i n on e wa y o r another , b e brough t int o contac t with art . I t include s th e physica l environmen t (soil , climate) , politica l and socia l conditions , an d cultura l an d psychologica l forces . I t ha s bee n said correctl y tha t Tain e neve r properl y analyze d th e notion , an d rarel y attempted t o clarif y wha t h e specificall y mean t b y it. In stressin g th e significanc e o f "milieu, " Taine's chie f intentio n i s t o 32£

Modern Theories of Art show tha t i t i s not th e individua l artis t wh o determine s th e characte r o f the wor k o f art , bu t rathe r th e broa d cultura l realit y fro m whic h i t emerges. T o b e sure , sometime s i t woul d see m t o follo w fro m Taine' s text tha t h e conceive s o f ar t a s onl y a matte r o f persona l emotion . Discussing Michelangelo , h e speak s o f th e artis t a s compulsivel y mim icking a n inne r sensation , an d argue s tha t h e altere d th e ordinar y proportions o f th e huma n bod y unde r suc h interna l pressur e (1,6 0 ff.) . However, th e majo r "law " governing th e productio n o f th e wor k o f ar t is formulate d i n a n almos t scholasti c manner . U A wor k o f art, " Tain e says, "i s determine d b y a n aggregat e whic h i s th e genera l stat e o f th e mind an d th e surroundin g circumstances " (1,87) . The "aggregates " ma y be il l defined , the y ma y ofte n b e confused . Wha t th e ter m undoubtedl y shows i s tha t th e grea t creativ e power s o f ar t ar e her e sough t beyon d the artist' s psyche , beyon d hi s imagination , an d hi s uniqu e persona l character. To gras p Taine' s theor y o f art , on e mus t properl y appreciat e th e significance o f type s i n hi s thought . Fo r al l hi s apparen t connection s with realis m o r naturalism , i t wa s no t th e individua l figure, th e imag e of th e liv e perso n walkin g th e streets , tha t hel d hi s attention . Almos t his entir e interest , Welle k correctl y says , "focuse s o n fictional charac ters." Fo r hi m th e characte r i s "th e concret e universal," 46 an d thi s i s the "reality " h e ha d i n mind . Th e concep t o f "type " wa s no t ne w i n aesthetic reflection , a s on e nee d hardl y poin t out . I n moder n time s i t was frequentl y employe d i n Germa n philosophica l literature , particu larly b y Augus t Wilhel m Schlege l an d b y Schelling . Hippolyt e Tain e formulated th e concep t o n severa l occasions , no t leas t i n hi s lecture s o n art. We hav e alread y see n tha t th e artist' s tas k i s "t o mak e apparen t th e essential character o f th e object " h e portray s (64) . Thi s characte r i s " a quality fro m whic h al l others , o r a t leas t mos t othe r qualities , ar e derived accordin g t o definit e affinities. " I n actua l reality , th e essentia l character "mould s rea l objects , bu t i t doe s no t moul d the m completely : its actio n i s restricted , impede d b y th e interventio n o f othe r causes ; it s impression o n object s bearin g it s stam p i s no t sufficientl y stron g t o b e clearly visible " (Ijo) . Th e artist' s job , s o Tain e repeat s a n age-ol d idea , is t o complet e wha t natur e coul d not , t o sho w i n ful l clarit y wha t i n 326

The Artist nature i s partly obscured . In pas t age s thi s argumen t ha d bee n adduce d mainly i n connectio n wit h beauty . Th e artist , s o w e hav e hear d tim e and again , shoul d sho w th e beaut y tha t i s inheren t i n natur e bu t tha t cannot appea r wit h sufficien t clarit y i n th e natura l bodie s themselves . The individua l artis t an d hi s uniqu e characte r an d styl e pla y almos t no par t i n Taine' s thought . Thi s i s no t onl y a persona l orientatio n o f interests; i t als o jibe s wit h hi s philosophica l concep t o f man . H e ofte n conceives o f th e huma n min d i n term s o f mechanisti c analogies . " A man's particula r geniu s i s lik e a clock/ ' h e coul d say ; ' i t ha s it s mechanism, an d amon g it s part s a mainspring." 47 Instea d o f dealin g with individua l artists , Tain e i s concerne d wit h th e characte r o f som e of th e majo r historica l former s o f artisti c creations , suc h a s th e Greeks , the Italian s o f th e Renaissanc e period , an d th e Dutc h betwee n th e fifteenth an d seventeent h centuries . Thes e ar e th e grea t example s o f collective creation , and , perhap s followin g Hegel , Tain e declare s tha t each o f them mad e a distinct an d lastin g contribution t o huma n culture . His comment s o n th e individua l formation s ar e no t o f equa l significanc e with regar d t o th e theorie s o f ar t h e represents , an d help s t o construct . I shal l remar k briefl y o n wha t h e say s abou t th e Greek s and , especially , the Dutc h painters . The primar y characteristi c o f the Greek s wa s thei r abilit y t o conceiv e comprehensive idea s an d images . Not e tha t Tain e doe s no t emphasiz e the "beauty " o f Gree k art , bu t rathe r it s comprehensive , o r composi tional, character . Wholeness , o r comprehensiveness , on e coul d say , i s a component o f th e traditiona l concept s o f beauty . Ye t ther e i s a differ ence betwee n a stres s o n beaut y a s suc h (eve n i f i t implie s wholeness ) and a singlin g ou t o f th e specifi c component , makin g i t th e primar y subject. Th e abilit y t o conceiv e whole , encompassin g idea s an d image s is made a t leas t partiall y explicabl e t o Taine b y the impac t o f the natura l environment. Th e Gree k countrysid e ha s n o colossa l proportions , n o mountaintops los t i n cloud , n o feature s tha t g o beyon d huma n compre hension. Thi s qualit y o f th e surroundin g natur e i s als o foun d i n th e social an d politica l institution s o f ancien t Greece . Th e aestheti c charac ter o f Gree k ar t i s primaril y a manifestatio n o f tha t overal l character . You ca n observ e i t i n al l th e majo r monuments . A Gree k temple , t o give bu t on e example , i s " a marbl e monstranc e enclosin g a uniqu e 327

Modern Theories of Art statue. A t a hundre d pace s of f fro m th e sacre d precinct s yo u ca n seiz e the directio n an d harmon y o f th e principa l lines . The y are , moreover , so simpl e tha t a singl e glanc e suffice s t o comprehen d th e whole' ' (II,4i 8). A grea t man y o f Taine' s idea s o n Gree k ar t deriv e fro m olde r traditions. Thus , th e influenc e o f th e Gree k landscap e an d climat e o n the restrained an d measured form s o f Greek art is found i n Winckelmann 48 and hi s followers . Bu t Taine' s emphasi s o n thes e olde r idea s ha d a significant effec t o n late r nineteenth-centur y though t o n art . While wha t Tain e say s abou t th e Greek s indicate s ho w muc h h e stil l owes t o th e classicis t traditio n o f th e eighteent h century , wha t h e say s about Netherlandis h paintin g show s ho w fa r remove d i n fac t h e i s fro m that tradition . Dutc h painting , Tain e believes , stand s fo r th e northern , or "Germanic, " race s i n general . I t i s o f a particula r character , bot h i n its spiritua l natur e an d i n it s style . Wha t distinguishe s i t fro m th e ar t o f the "classi c races, " tha t is , th e ar t o f peopl e o n th e shore s o f th e Mediterranean, i s "a preferenc e fo r substanc e ove r form, o f actual verit y to beautifu l externals " (11,22 0 ff). Thi s "instinct, " a s ou r autho r put s it , is als o characteristi c o f th e religio n an d literatur e o f th e Netherlands . As oppose d t o th e master s o f th e Italia n Renaissance , th e Dutc h artist s "were incapabl e o f simplifyin g nature" ; the y aime d a t th e fullnes s o f reality (11,223) . Seventeenth-centur y Dutc h painter s exalte d man , bu t they di d s o "withou t raisin g hi m abov e hi s terrestria l condition. " Wha t they trie d t o do , i n fact , wa s t o "expan d hi s appetite , hi s lusts , hi s energy, an d hi s gaiety " (11,224) . Th e moder n reader , followin g Taine' s argument, canno t hel p noticin g ho w littl e ou r basi c characterization s o f Dutch versu s Italia n ar t hav e change d i n th e hundre d an d twent y year s that hav e passe d sinc e thes e lecture s wer e delivere d t o youn g artist s i n the Ecol e de s beau x arts . Hippolyte Taine , however , i s no t conten t wit h simpl y formulatin g the expressiv e characte r o f Dutc h painting . A centra l valu e o f Flemis h and Dutc h ar t "i s th e excellenc e an d delicac y o f it s coloring. " Wha t was i t tha t brough t abou t thi s sensitivit y t o color ? Th e answe r lead s u s back t o th e centra l thesis . Th e sensitivit y t o colo r follow s fro m "th e education o f th e eye , whic h i n Flander s an d Hollan d i s peculiar " (11,2 2$). Bu t wha t precisel y wa s i t tha t educate d th e ey e i n Flander s an d 328

The Artist Holland? Onc e agai n w e lear n somethin g abou t ho w natur e mold s ma n and hi s tastes . "I n th e dr y countr y [Tain e obviousl y ha s Ital y i n mind ] the lin e predominates . . . the mountain s cu t shar p agains t th e sky. " Bu t in th e Netherland s th e climat e i s different , an d s o th e tast e tha t developed unde r it s impac t wil l prefe r differen t values . "Th e lo w horizon i s withou t interest , an d th e contour s o f object s ar e softened , blended an d blurre d b y th e imperceptibl e vapo r wit h whic h th e atmo sphere i s alway s filled; tha t whic h predominate s i s th e spot. " Suc h natural condition s als o shap e th e wa y w e perceiv e things . "Th e objec t emerges; it doe s no t star t suddenl y ou t o f its surroundings a s if punche d out; yo u ar e struc k b y it s modelling , tha t i s t o sa y b y th e differin g degrees o f advancing luminousnes s an d th e divers e gradations o f meltin g color whic h transfor m it s general tin t . . ." (11,226). Here agai n ver y littl e roo m i s lef t fo r th e individua l artist . I t i s th e basic condition s o f natur e an d th e essentia l structure s o f societ y tha t determine th e subjec t matte r an d styl e o f th e wor k o f art. On e ca n ver y well understan d ho w a generation suspiciou s o f Romanti c introspectio n and longin g fo r som e kin d o f tangible , objectiv e foundatio n wa s s o charmed b y wha t Tain e ha d t o say . I t i s obviou s tha t thi s message , imbued wit h th e scientifi c ideal s of the time , is open t o serious criticism . Succeeding generation s an d othe r trend s hav e indee d raise d question s that th e Tain e schoo l coul d no t answer . Fo r th e historia n o f ar t theory , however, i t i s no t alway s th e "truth " tha t counts ; h e i s ofte n mor e drawn b y th e historica l powe r o f a vie w tha n b y it s inne r coherence . Seen i n suc h a light , Hippolyt e Tain e i s a n importan t representativ e o f the tur n o f though t characteristi c o f th e mid-nineteent h century .

IV. FACET S O F REALIS M I. ORIGI N O F TH E TER M

Can w e tak e wha t Tain e say s abou t th e visua l art s a s a genuine , authoritative statemen t o f th e movemen t know n a s Realism ? On e hesi tates. Perhap s n o othe r aestheti c concep t i s a s multifaceted , an d there fore a s difficul t t o use , a s i s realism . I n speakin g o f realism , on e shoul d 329

Modern Theories of Art recall, w e ar e dealin g wit h a genera l tendency , no t a specifi c doctrine . Realism, i t hardl y need s stressing , mean s differen t thing s i n differen t contexts. I n mid-nineteenth-centur y France , "realisme " becam e th e subject o f a livel y intellectual , perhap s ideological , debate . Jule s Fleury Husson, know n b y th e pseudony m o f Champfleur y (t o who m w e shal l return shortly) , collecte d som e o f his—rathe r journalistic—criticism s of paintin g int o a volum e h e calle d Le realisme (18^7) . A t th e sam e time , his friend , th e little-know n Edmon d Duranty , publishe d seve n monthl y issues o f a magazine calle d Realisme (fro m Novembe r 18^ 6 to Ma y 18^7) . These an d simila r publication s di d no t ope n u p a theoretica l discussio n on matter s o f art ; rathe r the y gav e a generic nam e t o a debat e tha t ha d been goin g o n fo r som e time . Discussion s o f realism , whethe r o r no t that ter m wa s employed , occupie d a centra l plac e i n Frenc h aestheti c thought o f th e period. 49 While thi s debat e wa s goin g o n wit h regar d t o literature , wha t wa s happening t o th e dynamicall y developin g theorie s o f painting an d sculp ture? Here , i t seems , th e outline s wer e eve n mor e obscure d tha n i n literature, an d thi s i s particularl y tru e fo r view s concernin g th e artist' s position. I shal l tr y t o presen t th e mai n current s o f though t tha t dominated th e mid-nineteent h centur y throug h a fe w examples . Whil e none o f thes e amoun t t o a systematic doctrine , take n togethe r the y ma y indicate th e rang e o f view s hel d a t th e time . 2. PROUDHO N

Let m e begi n wit h th e thinker s wh o represen t th e "audience, " tha t is , the societ y t o whic h th e work s o f ar t ar e ultimatel y addressed . I shal l start wit h Pierr e Joseph Proudho n (1809 — 186^), philosopher an d social ist, socia l reformer , politician , an d Utopian. H e wa s no t i n th e first plac e an aestheticia n o r criti c o f art , hi s majo r intellectua l effort s bein g devoted t o problem s o f socia l justice an d reform . I t wa s Proudho n who , as earl y a s 1840 , conceive d th e formula , destine d t o becom e famou s throughout Europe , tha t "propert y i s theft. " Althoug h Proudho n wa s mainly concerne d wit h socia l matters , h e forme d clos e an d lastin g connections wit h artists , an d h e considere d artisti c creatio n a s a signifi cant proble m i n hi s view s o n ma n an d society . H e wa s a frien d o f 33o

The Artist Gustave Courbet , an d a member o f the group o f writers an d artist s wh o supported Courbet' s radica l stance . A t th e ver y en d o f hi s life , afte r hi s major work s ha d appeared , Proudho n als o published , i n i86£ , a boo k called Du principe de Van et de sa destination sociale (O n th e Principle s o f Art an d It s Socia l Function) , a kin d o f summin g u p o f idea s expresse d in th e cours e o f thirt y years. 50 In matter s o f ar t an d aesthetics , Proudho n wa s no t on e o f th e grea t minds o f th e nineteent h century . I n acquaintin g onesel f wit h hi s ar t criticism on e doe s no t experienc e th e exhilaratio n o f discoverin g a ne w continent, a s whe n readin g Winckelmann ; no r doe s on e have , a s wit h Hegel, th e sensatio n o f lookin g dow n fro m a mountainto p a t a vas t landscape whos e structur e suddenl y become s clear . Wha t Proudhon' s often rathe r trivia l statement s offe r us , o n th e othe r hand , i s a familia r tone tha t i s sometimes surprising . W e ar e i n ou r ow n world , an d man y of his statements coul d hav e bee n mad e yesterday . I n fact, i t i s precisel y because wha t Proudho n say s i s so clos e t o wha t w e ar e use d t o hearin g that hi s phrase s soun d s o trivial . W e shoul d read , an d devot e som e attention to , Proudho n a s th e lin k betwee n a past an d ou r present , eve n if his intellectua l leve l cannot b e compared wit h tha t o f the great figures just mentioned . Proudho n i s remarkabl e no t onl y becaus e h e ha s a general affinit y fo r certai n problem s an d attitude s characteristi c o f ou r own generatio n bu t becaus e i t i s particularl y th e radica l attitude , an d the ideologica l debate s i t provoked , tha t h e anticipates . Proudhon's attitud e t o ar t ma y sometime s see m paradoxical . O n th e one hand , h e posit s a n aestheti c facult y i n man , a facult y tha t i s a natural gift . Ma n canno t d o withou t ar t an y mor e tha n h e ca n d o without scienc e o r technique , h e say s i n hi s major theoretica l work . Ar t is als o wha t distinguishe s ma n fro m al l th e beasts. 51 Man , i n hi s ver y nature, i s an artist . H e invente d paintin g fo r th e "pleasur e o f hi s eyes. " It i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t Proudho n s o intimatel y link s ar t wit h huma n freedom. "Ar t i s libert y itself, " h e proclaims. 52 Whil e thi s ide a i s no t a new on e (i n a slightl y differen t for m i t wa s formulate d b y Friedric h Schiller a t th e en d o f th e eighteent h century) , i t acquire s a ne w significance i n Proudhon' s doctrine . On th e othe r hand , Proudho n devote s a grea t dea l o f attentio n t o the socia l characte r an d significanc e o f art . I n fact , th e socia l dimensio n 331

Modern Theories of Art of th e wor k o f ar t i s s o overwhelmin g tha t i t almos t completel y overshadows al l it s natura l components . Th e concer n wit h art' s socia l impact i s foun d a t almos t al l stage s o f Proudhon' s intellectua l develop ment, a s Pierr e Pali x ha s show n (pp . 86 $ ff.) . I t als o le d hi m t o far reaching conclusion s wit h regar d t o th e positio n o f th e artist . Art ha s a n educativ e function , h e believes , an d i t ha s th e powe r t o incite people . Th e Churc h understoo d this , an d therefor e suc h larg e parts o f ar t wer e actuall y i n th e servic e o f religio n an d th e Church . Proudhon ma y b e oppose d t o th e Churc h i n hi s politica l views , bu t h e acknowledges th e ecclesiastica l insigh t int o th e powe r o f art , wit h significant repercussion s o n hi s vie w o f th e artist . Art, i t follow s fro m muc h o f what h e says , is too seriou s an d weight y a matte r t o b e lef t t o th e artist s alon e (Palix , pp . 889) . Precisel y becaus e the paintin g o r th e statu e ha s suc h a grea t powe r o f incitement , i t i s society a s a whole , an d no t th e individual , eve n i f h e i s th e artist , tha t must determin e th e subject s an d th e use s o f art. Proudhon , th e politica l radical, her e clearl y anticipate s som e o f th e idea s w e hav e com e t o know s o wel l i n ou r ow n generation . Th e studen t o f histor y canno t help bein g struc k b y wha t seem s t o b e thi s completel y sudde n emer gence o f th e deman d fo r a "committe d art, " inspire d an d directe d b y society (an d whoeve r ma y b e i n a position t o spea k fo r society) . Proudhon stresse s tha t th e artis t canno t hel p bein g "committed, " t o use th e present-da y term . T o pain t somethin g withou t carin g abou t what on e represent s i s no t onl y morall y detestable ; i n th e final analysis , it i s simpl y impossible . Th e artis t wil l alway s tak e u p a position , h e cannot simpl y remai n neutral , withou t color , a s i t were . I t i s fo r thi s reason tha t Proudho n believe s th e artis t t o b e th e collaborato r o f th e social reformer . The subjec t matte r an d styl e o f th e paintin g follo w fro m art' s function i n socia l reform . Proudho n defend s wha t h e call s th e "critica l school," tha t is , th e schoo l o f realisti c painting , agains t th e idealizin g trend tha t prevaile d i n nineteenth-century academi c painting . As Proudho n projects hi s ideas , th e representativ e o f th e idealizin g tren d wil l ask : "What ca n ar t d o wit h suc h a s we wh o ar e a wretched, servile , ignoble , uncouth, ugl y mob? " Ou r author' s repl y t o thi s questio n implie s hi s whole vie w o f ar t an d o f art' s positio n i n th e orde r o f things . Art , h e 332

The Artist says, "ca n d o somethin g mos t interesting , th e mos t gloriou s thin g o f all." Instead o f sayin g wha t tha t "mos t glorious " thin g is , h e goes bac k to th e basi c ai m o f art . "It s tas k i s t o improv e us , help u s and save us." From thi s ai m ther e follow s th e characte r o f th e representation . "I n order t o improv e u s i t mus t firs t o f al l kno w us , an d i n orde r t o kno w us, i t mus t se e u s a s w e ar e an d no t i n som e fantastic , reflecte d imag e which i s n o longe r us. " In realistic painting , "ma n will becom e hi s ow n mirror, an d he wil l lear n ho w t o contemplat e hi s soul throug h studyin g his tru e countenance." 53 Proudhon's statement , givin g hi s reason s fo r advocatin g realism , deserves carefu l attentio n an d analysis. H e accept s a s a matter o f cours e most o f th e basi c premise s o f traditiona l ar t theory , essentiall y seein g art as an imitation o f outside realit y (or "nature, " as it was called i n th e Renaissance). Bodil y appearanc e reflect s mora l character : i n studyin g our physica l countenanc e w e contemplat e ou r soul . Al l this , thoug h perhaps i n some slightl y modified formulation , woul d hav e bee n accept able t o mos t artist s an d thinker s betwee n th e sixteent h an d th e nine teenth centuries . Hi s reason s fo r holdin g view s tha t requir e a realisti c representation o f nature , however , diffe r fro m thos e tha t made thinker s of forme r generations accep t th e sam e principles . Fo r th e Renaissance , and fo r al l wh o accepte d it s legacy , th e truthfu l renderin g o f natur e i n art—vera imitazione, a s i t wa s called—wa s a n autonomous valu e need ing n o furthe r foundation . Fo r Proudhon , realisti c representatio n i s no t an autonomous value , i t i s not a n end i n itself; rather it i s only a means that make s i t possibl e t o achiev e art' s ultimat e aim . Tha t aim , w e remember, i s t o improv e man , eve n t o sav e him. I n order t o achiev e it , we nee d th e shoc k o f seein g ourselve s a s w e are—"wretched , servile , ignoble, uncouth , ugly. " In the last analysis, then, realis m is an unavoidable, initial ste p i n the treatmen t o f mankind. On e understand s ho w th e painter i s th e collaborato r o f th e socia l reformer . Another featur e o f Proudhon' s concep t o f realis m shoul d no t b e overlooked, eve n i f i t i s onl y implied . Thi s i s th e associatin g o f realis m with man alone. Proudho n neve r explicitly state s that realistic represen tation canno t b e applie d t o a landscap e o r a stil l life , bu t al l th e examples h e adduce s clearl y poin t t o man . Thu s h e praise s hi s frien d Courbet, wh o "ha s seriousl y trie d t o war n us , chaste n us , an d improv e 333

Modern Theories of Art us throug h portrayin g u s a s w e reall y are." 5 4 Ha d Proudho n neve r see n one o f Courbet' s landscapes ? Give n th e dat e an d thei r intimat e relation ship, h e surel y had . Bu t realism , i t seems , belong s t o th e domai n o f man. Anothe r example , eve n mor e striking , i s th e referenc e t o Dutc h and Flemis h painting , specifyin g "thei r villag e fairs , thei r weddin g festivities, thei r gatherings , thei r househol d interiors , an d eve n . . . thei r taverns. . . ,"5 5 Ther e ca n b e littl e doub t tha t Proudho n sa w som e o f the dramati c Dutc h skyscape s an d peaceful picture s representin g cow s in meadows . Suc h images , howeve r clos e thei r renderin g ma y b e t o nature, d o no t see m t o b e linke d t o realism . Realis m no t onl y expresse s society; i t ha s socia l scene s an d type s a s it s subjec t matter . The socia l essenc e o f ar t extend s no t onl y ove r subjec t matte r an d form; i t als o dominates th e relationshi p betwee n th e artis t an d hi s work . Proudhon eve n raise s th e question , thoug h onl y i n passing , a s t o whether th e artis t ca n d o wha t h e please s wit h hi s work . I s th e artist , for instance , permitte d t o destro y hi s ow n work ? N o Romanti c woul d have bee n i n doub t a s t o th e reply , an d som e ma y eve n hav e glorifie d such a deed. No t s o Proudhon . Th e artist , h e wrot e a s early a s 1848 , "is not th e owne r [o f th e wor k o f ar t h e ha s created] , h e i s [onl y its ] producer." T o mak e clea r wha t h e means , h e project s th e imaginar y situation o f "Leonard o d a Vinc i burnin g dow n hi s paintin g o f th e Las t Supper, afte r h e ha s produce d it , [an d doin g so ] fo r hi s ow n pleasure , and i n orde r t o manifes t hi s ownership . Thi s Leonardo, " Proudho n concludes, "woul d b e a monster." 56 3. CHAMPFLEUR Y

Champfleury—the pe n nam e o f Jules Francoi s Feli x Husson , di t Fleur y (1821 —1889)—can claim , probabl y wit h mor e justificatio n tha n any body else , t o hav e coine d th e moder n ter m "realism. " A versatil e an d very prolifi c writer , activ e i n variou s fields, h e loom s larg e o n th e horizon o f ever y studen t wh o trie s t o follo w th e unfoldin g o f moder n views o n art . Hi s significanc e follow s les s fro m th e dept h an d delicac y of hi s though t (i n profundit y o f though t an d i n subtlet y o f perceptio n he canno t compar e wit h som e o f hi s contemporaries , suc h a s Hege l o r Beaudelaire) tha n fro m th e fac t tha t h e wa s see n a s a genuin e an d 334

The Artist central spokesma n o f a powerfu l tren d o f aestheti c though t i n th e modern world . Hi s majo r domai n was , o f course , literature . H e wrot e novels tha t wer e muc h rea d i n hi s time , an d h e wrot e critica l an d theoretical discussion s o f a great rang e an d variety . Fo r decades , more over, h e als o devote d muc h attentio n t o th e visua l arts , primaril y painting, without restrictin g himself to his own period . Though focusin g on contemporar y art , h e obviousl y believe d tha t th e grea t artisti c heritage o f the pas t shed s light o n th e problem s o f th e present . Champfleury's attitud e t o th e "ar t of th e Louvre " is one o f discrimi nation betwee n differen t periods . Neve r acceptin g traditiona l ar t a s a whole, h e no t only distinguishe d th e achievemen t o f on e artis t fro m another, bu t als o clearl y preferre d certai n schools , o r loca l traditions , over others. Th e reason s fo r suc h preference s ar e always th e tendencie s dominating on e schoo l o r another . Eve n hi s criticism , then , hi s judg ment o f individua l artist s o r paintings , i s permeate d b y th e searc h fo r Weltanschauung. In th e Louvre , tha t is , i n th e grea t ar t o f th e past , Champfleur y wa s mainly draw n t o tw o group s o f artist s o r artisti c traditions. 57 Earl y on , mainly befor e 1848 , he wa s attracte d b y artist s wh o ha d som e affinitie s to th e spiri t o f th e Baroque , painter s o f dram a an d tension . Rembrand t is a good exampl e o f thi s spirit . Hi s dramati c powe r reflect s th e inne r tension throug h th e placin g o f light s an d shadows : th e darknes s o f th e shadows i s pierce d b y mysteriou s ray s o f light . Paol o Veronese , th e most livel y o f colorists , i s another prominen t instance . I t is not surpris ing that Champfleur y wa s also attracted b y the modern discipl e o f thes e artists, Eugen e Delacroix . The other school o f painting that particularly interested Champfleur y is o f a ver y differen t expressiv e nature : i t i s th e schoo l o f Dutc h seventeenth-century painting . Delighte d an d admiring, h e stand s befor e the quie t scene s show n b y Dutc h painters—landscapes , stil l lifes , an d genre scenes . I t i s th e realism , an d perhap s als o th e seren e quiet , tha t speaks t o Champfleury . No t onl y th e Dutc h bu t als o Frenc h artist s lik e Le Nai n an d Chardi n belon g t o thi s schoo l i n hi s thought . Again , th e criticism i s base d o n theory . Wha t Champfleur y admire s i n al l thes e artists i s th e faijthfu l depictio n o f a realit y tha t ha s no t bee n mad e t o look mor e beautifu l tha n i t reall y is. 33£

Modern Theories of Art The clos e interrelatio n betwee n theoretica l worl d vie w an d ar t criti cism i s even mor e manifes t i n hi s treatmen t o f th e ar t o f modern times , that is , of the lat e eighteenth an d earl y nineteenth century . Champfleur y reserves hi s mos t bitin g criticis m fo r classicis t painting . Wh y actuall y does h e s o muc h dislik e Neoclassicism ? I t seem s tha t hi s mai n objectio n is "falsity." "Th e Greek s o f Davi d ar e no t Greeks, " our autho r writes. 58 The Antiquit y tha t neoclassica l painter s projec t ont o thei r larg e canvase s is a fals e Antiquity . Bu t th e critica l reade r i s no t alway s certai n i n wha t specific sens e neoclassica l Antiquit y i s take n t o b e false . Would , fo r instance, greate r archaeologica l fidelity mak e th e imag e o f th e ancien t world les s misleading ? Th e answe r i s no t alway s clear . Mor e ca n b e learned fro m wha t Champfleur y ha s t o sa y abou t th e livin g representa tive o f academi c Neoclassicism , J . A . D . Ingre s (1780—1867) , fo r who m he reserve s hi s harshes t disapproval . Champfleury' s criticis m o f Ingres , one nee d hardl y specify , i s no t presente d a s a theoretica l doctrine ; i t i s primarily a criticism o f individua l paintings . An d yet , i t doe s mak e som e general theoretica l assumptions , eve n thoug h thes e remai n implicit . On e assumption i s tha t goo d paintin g mus t b e base d o n a direct , immediat e representation o f reality . Champfleur y criticize s Ingres' s manne r fo r "coldness," fo r adoptin g th e styl e o f officia l academism . Th e coldnes s of style , on e canno t understan d i t otherwise , result s fro m replacin g nature b y a system o f convention s an d fro m followin g artificia l manner istic model s rathe r tha n livin g reality . Ingre s execute s specifi c detail s precisely, an d i n a sophisticate d manner , bu t i t i s th e natur e o f thes e details an d thei r placemen t i n th e whol e imag e o f th e worl d depicte d that Champfleur y consider s false . Th e learne d compositio n o f Ingres' s Apotheosis of Homer is an exampl e o f "insincer e mannerism. " The othe r assumptio n h e makes, without statin g i t i n s o many words , is that liv e reality shoul d b e rendere d "a s i t is. " Champfleury, w e shoul d remember, wrot e thi s criticis m i n 1848 , i n a perio d o f hig h socia l tension, an d i t i s no t surprisin g tha t h e make s th e depictio n o f socia l reality th e cente r o f hi s discussion . Ingres , h e claims , i s th e typica l representative o f bourgeoi s painting . Hi s insincerity— a crucia l compo nent o f a bourgeoi s painter' s artisti c personality—make s hi m cove r reality, i n itsel f ugl y an d deformed , wit h a fine gra y shadow. 59 Ingre s treats realit y cosmetically . H e make s hi s model s leane r tha n the y ac 336

The Artist tually are , h e endow s the m wit h th e grac e the y lac k i n reality . Ingres' s fault an d tha t o f bourgeoi s paintin g i n general, w e coul d say , i s a moral one. The criticis m o f classicis t cliches , an d eve n o f bourgeoi s insincerity , sounds romantic . I t would probabl y have been supported b y all Romantic critics . Bu t Champfleur y i s no t a Romantic , hi s attitud e t o Roman ticism is critica l indeed . Hi s disapprova l o f romanti c ar t i s less easil y grasped tha n hi s rejectio n o f neoclassi c painting , bu t i t i s n o less important. H e doe s no t us e th e ter m "romantic, " he speak s o f th e ecole fantaisiste, but th e painter s h e treat s a s its representatives (Delacroi x an d Gericault) sho w tha t h e mean s wha t w e no w cal l Romanti c painting . What th e artist s o f th e ecole fantaisiste suffe r fro m i s a n exces s o f imagination. Onc e again , on e wonder s wha t precisel y is mean t b y thi s lively phrase . Wha t h e intend s t o sa y seems , a t bottom , t o b e tha t Romantic painters , submittin g t o th e powe r o f thei r imaginations , ar e carried awa y fro m actua l reality . Raphael' s Madonn a i s a belle farce. O f an allegorica l statue calle d Youth he asks : "Doe s a woma n exis t tha t represents Youth ? And the n th e youn g figure shown i s totall y naked . I s this one real? " And getting sarcastic , h e continues : "On e shoul d mak e a gown fo r her ; wher e i s th e gown?" 60 Base d o n thes e an d som e othe r passages, on e woul d hav e t o sa y tha t imaginatio n i n paintin g largel y pertains t o th e real m o f subjec t matter . Al l allegories , personifications , and pictoria l metaphor s ar e include d i n tha t exces s o f imagination . What i s th e difference , then , betwee n classicis m an d romanticism ? Champfleury doe s no t see m t o doub t th e persona l sincerit y o f th e Romantic artist . H e follow s hi s ow n imagination , whil e th e classicis t artist accept s ready-mad e formulae . Bu t bot h abando n reality . Now, i f w e tak e awa y classicis t idealization , o n th e on e hand , an d the excessiv e imaginatio n o f th e Romantics , o n th e other , wha t ar e w e left with ? Champfleur y doe s no t hesitate : wha t remain s i s th e faithfu l representation o f reality , o r wha t i s calle d realism . Champfleur y wa s indeed considere d th e trailblaze r o f Realis m i n literatur e an d painting . And yet h e wa s aware of ho w vagu e tha t ter m is . H e i s suspicious o f all "isms," whatever the y ma y indicate ; realism , however , raise s particula r difficulties. I t ha s always existed , an d therefor e i t ha s naturall y com e t o mean a grea t man y differen t things . "Coul d I ente r th e polic y o f a 337

Modern Theories of Art government i n orde r t o prescrib e wha t critic s hav e calle d realism, the pen woul d immediatel y bur n m y fingers, an d woul d compe l m e t o write: 'th e cul t o f realit y i s th e first o f cults ' " — s o h e said , i n 1861 , in the introductio n t o hi s Grandesfigures d'hier et d'aujourd'hui (Grea t Figure s of Yesterda y an d Today). 61 Almos t a decade earlier , h e ha d writte n tha t "realism i s as ol d a s th e world , an d ther e hav e alway s bee n realists ; bu t the critics , i n constantl y employin g th e term , mak e i t obligator y fo r u s to mak e us e o f it." 62 Bu t i t i s precisely th e universalit y o f realis m i n th e art o f al l age s tha t make s i t s o difficul t t o defin e th e concept . Onc e more, w e lear n wha t Champfleur y actuall y mean s fro m th e example s h e discusses rathe r tha n fro m an y theoretica l definitio n h e migh t offer . These example s ar e take n mainl y fro m contemporar y artists . I n a generation distorte d an d twiste d b y bot h Romanti c sentimentalit y an d neoclassical dryness , s o Champfleur y thought , som e painter s stan d ou t by thei r "sincerity. " Amon g thes e i s Corot . Corot' s virtues , a s ou r author see s them , ar e primaril y hi s sobriet y an d th e wan t o f "artisti c effects." T o pu t i t paradoxically , Carot' s "sincerity " consist s mainl y i n what i s no t t o b e foun d i n hi s work . I t is , then, onl y b y comparin g hi m with othe r contemporar y painter s tha t hi s characteristi c qualitie s be come manifest . I n th e whol e centur y discusse d i n th e presen t book , ever sinc e Winckelmann , w e see m t o encounte r th e sam e elusiv e valu e that i s believed t o b e lackin g i n th e artisti c productio n o f th e nea r past : Winckelmann calle d thi s almos t Utopia n valu e "simplicity" 63 ; Champ fleury's ter m fo r i t i s "sobriety. " Thoug h th e tw o term s ar e no t quit e identical (Winckelman n woul d hav e dislike d th e "baseness " o f Cour bet's figures, Champfleur y writes), 64 the y hav e a great dea l i n common ; they bot h expres s th e longin g fo r a genuin e visio n o f th e object s t o b e represented. Characteristic als o is Champfleury's interes t i n another contemporar y painter, Francoi s Bonvi n (1817-1887) , wh o t o u s i s not on e o f th e grea t artists o f th e nineteent h century . Wha t attracte d Champfleur y t o hi m was what h e perceive d t o b e th e prosai c characte r o f his art. I n Bonvin' s work, s o ou r autho r believes , w e perceiv e a socia l tone . H e describe s Bonvin, "th e so n o f a seamstres s an d a villag e policeman, " a s "th e painter o f th e family." 65 Th e Chardinesqu e characte r o f Bonvin' s wor k is stressed, bu t thi s characte r ha s becom e mor e prosaic . 338

The Artist Champfleury reserve s hi s greatest prais e for Courbet , "th e painte r o f the landscape o f humanity," 66 whos e great achievemen t i s the "rehabil itation o f th e modern." 67 H e stresse s Courbet' s revolutionar y role , hi s breaking wit h traditions . Nevertheless , h e attempt s t o plac e Courbe t i n a great pictoria l tradition . I n France , s o Champfleur y report s a friend' s words, thre e painter s stan d out : the y ar e L e Nain , Chardin , an d Cour bet.68 This is a realistic tradition, bu t i t is also a tradition that , in subject matter an d styl e o f presentation , ha s a certai n socia l connotation . Ou r author als o look s fo r othe r historica l connection s tha t woul d b e a natural contex t fo r Courbet . T o b e sure , Courbe t di d no t kno w th e Spanish masters , but , "withou t knowin g th e admirabl e canvase s o f Velasquez, h e finds himself i n agreemen t wit h th e illustriou s master." 69 All thes e historica l relations , however , i n no way detrac t fro m th e mai n feature i n th e characterizatio n o f Courbet : h e i s th e painte r wh o "rehabilitated th e moder n world. " Time an d again , Champfleur y laud s th e artis t wh o turn s t o hi s ow n time. No r wa s h e alon e i n thi s praise . I n his generation, th e doctrin e o f accepting one' s ow n tim e wa s frequentl y preached . Th e present-da y student readin g thes e demands , ofte n phrase d wit h fiery enthusiasm , naturally ask s himsel f wha t the y i n fac t meant , th e concep t o f contem poraneity bein g obviousl y a comple x one . Moreover , i t i s a matte r o f common knowledg e tha t nobod y ca n escap e hi s ow n age , howeve r much h e ma y wis h t o d o so . Artists , whoeve r the y ma y be , ar e inevitably condemne d t o b e th e childre n o f thei r time , an d t o reflec t o r express, i n on e wa y o r another , th e concern s an d mood s o f thei r ow n world. An d yet , i t ha s correctl y bee n sai d tha t th e mid-nineteent h century cal l fo r artist s t o b e "o f their own time " was more tha n a mere truism.70 The "presen t world " o r "ou r ow n time, " a s Champfleur y understood thes e terms , ar e no t abstrac t concepts . "Ou r ow n time " i s both a domain o f specifi c subjec t matte r an d a quality, o r character , o f artistic representation . Courbet, w e learn , enlarge d th e domai n o f th e seventeenth - an d eighteenth-century "bourgeois " masters (amon g the m suc h artist s a s Le Nain an d Chardin) . H e di d so , first an d foremost , b y representin g figures and scene s unknow n t o th e earlie r artists. I n The Stonebreakers h e embraced modernity . Suc h figures d o no t appea r i n th e work s o f th e 339

Modern Theories of Art former masters ; they ar e document s o f the moder n age . But introducin g new subjec t matte r i s no t th e onl y for m modernit y takes . Embracin g u our ow n time " i s also, and perhap s i n th e first place , acceptance o f th e central valu e informin g an d directin g th e artists ' efforts . Fo r centuries , the "realist " critic s felt , artist s wer e dominate d i n thei r wor k b y th e search fo r beauty . I t wa s i n th e cours e o f thi s searc h tha t certai n idealizations becam e common , finally degeneratin g int o "empty " aca demic formulae . Acceptin g one' s ag e als o becam e th e acceptanc e o f reality, eve n i f lacking beauty , eve n i f deformed, a s worth y o f represen tation. Interestingl y enough , Champfleury' s defens e o f thi s kin d o f modernity become s historical . H e i s awar e tha t man y o f th e face s an d figures i n Courbet' s Burial in Ornans deviat e fro m an y cano n o f beauty , but ask s rhetorically : "Th e physiognomie s o f th e peopl e o f O m a n — a r e they mor e frightenin g an d mor e grotesqu e tha n thos e o f Goya , o f Hogarth, an d o f Daumier?" 71 Champfleury , th e autho r o f a monumenta l work o n caricatur e (fo r whic h see below , pp . 380) , selects hi s example s from th e histor y o f caricature . Bu t h e her e touche s o n a problem—th e role o f th e ugl y i n art—tha t becam e prominen t i n mid-nineteenth century art . A s i t doe s no t easil y fit int o th e discussio n o f a n individua l critic, o r eve n o f a specifi c tren d o f thought , w e shal l dea l wit h i t separately a t th e en d o f thi s chapter. 72 Her e on e shoul d say , however , that abandonin g th e searc h fo r beauty , an d eve n acceptin g th e ugly , i s to Champfleur y on e o f th e indication s o f modernity . In conclusion, w e no w com e bac k t o th e majo r them e o f this chapter , the natur e o f th e artis t an d hi s rol e i n aestheti c thought . Wit h regar d to thi s particula r subject , th e anti-Romanti c leaning s o f realis m becom e strikingly manifest . Romanti c thought , w e hav e see n earlie r i n thi s chapter, conceive d o f th e artis t primaril y a s a unique individual , a figure distinguished b y the powe r o f experience an d vision ; his work originate s in th e imag e appearin g i n hi s mind , beyon d anybod y else' s reach , an d i t reflects hi s persona l characte r an d passions . I n th e though t o f realis m the emphasi s shifte d radically . Wher e Romanti c though t focuse d o n th e artist's unique , persona l experience , th e though t o f realis m i s concerne d with th e realit y tha t i s perceive d a s a n objectiv e configuration , bot h with regar d t o subjec t matte r an d forms . Romantics , t o b e sure , neve r denied tha t artist s hav e thei r root s i n cultura l traditions . A s w e hav e 340

The Artist seen, Wackenrode r eve n picture d Dure r a s a kin d o f maste r craftsma n working i n a n imaginar y medieva l cit y an d guild . Bu t the y always , eve n in speakin g o f Durer , assume d tha t th e wor k o f ar t originate s i n th e artist's inne r vision , an d tha t th e ac t o f creatio n canno t b e regulate d b y rational "laws. " See n agains t thi s background , th e realists ' view s o f th e artist, an d particularl y Champfleury's , ar e o f a conspicuousl y differen t character. The first observatio n tha t strike s th e studen t i s that i n realis t though t the "proble m o f th e artist " play s a much mor e modes t rol e tha n i t doe s in Romanti c doctrines . Fo r Romanticism , i t wa s a centra l problem . Among th e writer s groupe d a s th e "realisti c school, " th e cente r o f thought i s occupie d b y th e selectio n an d interpretatio n o f subjec t matter. Th e artis t a s suc h receive s ver y littl e attention . Insofa r a s h e i s discussed a t all , i t i s hi s rol e i n society , th e effec t o f hi s wor k o n th e audience, tha t i s th e majo r concern . Champfleur y woul d agre e tha t painting canno t b e considere d simpl y a s instruction ; i f i t trie s t o b e instruction (man y o f u s woul d toda y us e th e ter m "propaganda") , i t will quickl y los e it s power. 73 An d ye t h e suggest s tim e an d agai n tha t art bring s trait s o f realit y t o ou r attention , an d tha t thi s i s an importan t function tha t th e artis t shoul d neve r overlook . Th e outrigh t rejectio n o f art fo r art' s sak e i s a characteristi c featur e o f th e realists ' intellectua l attitude. I n i88£ , a t th e ver y en d o f hi s life , Courbe t remarke d tha t i t had no t bee n hi s though t t o "arriv e a t th e laz y goa l o f ar t fo r art' s sake." 74 Whe n Courbe t wrot e thes e words , th e rejectio n o f purel y aesthetic valu e ha d bee n a leadin g principl e fo r a whol e generation . T o Champfleury himself , Courbe t ha d said , precisel y thirt y year s earlier , that hi s Burial in Ornans woul d b e "th e mora l an d physica l histor y o f m y studio." 75 Not les s significan t tha n wha t Champfleur y ha s t o sa y abou t th e artist's natur e an d socia l functio n ar e th e ver y fe w comment s h e make s about th e productio n o f a wor k o f art . The y strik e u s bot h b y thei r content an d b y a certai n harshnes s o f tone . A s the y ar e margina l remarks, mad e i n th e cours e o f discussin g othe r subjects , som e o f thei r abruptness ma y b e accidental rathe r tha n intended . Still , they ar e clearl y revelatory o f Champfleury' s basi c attitud e t o th e proble m tha t ha s fascinated s o many thinkers—ho w a work o f ar t come s int o being . 34i

Modern Theories of Art The first statement , o r rathe r grou p o f statements , amount s t o making realis m tantamoun t t o th e negatin g o f imagination . W e hav e seen tha t Champfleur y reject s allegorie s an d personification s fo r th e reason tha t the y ar e invention s rathe r tha n depiction s o f a realit y objectively availabl e t o ever y spectator . T o avoi d a likely misunderstand ing, i t shoul d b e pointe d ou t tha t h e doe s no t condem n allegorie s an d personifications becaus e the y ar e routin e formula e tha t condem n th e artist t o a drynes s o f style . Hi s onl y reaso n fo r discardin g the m i s tha t they ar e inventions . Fo r th e artist' s work , then , objectiv e trut h i s superior t o poeti c invention : thi s i s a leadin g principl e o f realis t ar t theory, an d Champfleur y i s it s spokesman . Th e inventin g o f a ne w reality, a realit y tha t di d no t exis t befor e th e artis t shape d hi s work , precisely thi s wa s th e cornerston e o f Romanti c ar t theory , a s wel l a s o f theories i n man y earlie r centuries . Th e realists ' tota l rejectio n o f imagi nation i s indeed a revolutionary tur n i n th e histor y o f aesthetic thought . Another o f Champfleury' s statement s ma y als o see m strang e t o a modern reader . I t ha s t o d o wit h th e actua l productio n o f a wor k o f art. Becaus e ou r autho r wa s no t a painter , an d wa s o n th e whol e removed bot h fro m th e Academ y an d fro m liv e worksho p experience , his comments o n thi s subjec t refe r rathe r t o som e general characteristic s of th e proces s o f creation . Thoug h Champfleur y devote s n o separat e discussion t o th e creatio n o f a wor k o f art , h e manage s t o indicat e tha t the proces s ha s n o valu e o f it s own . "Th e powerfu l painter, " h e writes , "should b e abl e t o blo t ou t an d red o te n time s i n a row , an d withou t hesitation, hi s bes t painting , [an d this ] i n orde r t o prov e tha t h e i s neither th e slav e o f chanc e no r o f hi s nerves." 76 Champfleur y doe s no t tell u s wh y thi s shoul d b e so . Hi s statement , however , stand s i n clea r opposition t o th e spiri t o f al l earlie r treatment s o f th e subject . Eve r since th e Renaissance , ar t theory , i n a mor e o r les s explici t way , conceived th e creatio n o f a wor k o f ar t a s a uniqu e event . Eve n whe n in actua l fac t painter s repeate d thei r compositions , theoretician s di d no t seem t o tak e notic e o f th e fact . I n Romanti c thought , th e uniqueness , the inabilit y t o repea t th e process , becam e par t o f th e artist' s mystique . It i s par t o f th e driv e t o see th e artis t i n a ne w light , t o plan t hi m i n a new context , tha t h e i s suppose d t o b e abl e t o repea t th e proces s "te n times i n a row. " Th e artist' s dependenc e o n hi s "nerves"—seven 342

The Artist teenth-century author s o r th e Romantic s woul d her e us e th e wor d "inspiration"—is a failure rathe r tha n a sign o f grace.

4. FROMENTI N

In Franc e o f th e i8^o s an d 1860s , a s w e hav e ha d occasio n t o see , realism wa s no t a well-formulate d doctrine ; rathe r i t wa s a concer n with certai n problems , a n interes t i n a grou p o f themes , figures, an d ways o f depiction . In othe r words , i t wa s a n attitud e o r a moo d rathe r than a rationa l system . Thi s stat e o f affair s ofte n make s i t difficul t t o say wit h an y certaint y tha t a give n artis t o r write r does , o r doe s not , belong t o wha t i s calle d th e realisti c school . Doe s Eugen e Fromenti n belong t o tha t school ? Althoug h i t ma y b e difficul t t o giv e a n unequi vocal answer, h e represents , bette r tha n an y other theoretician , a certai n facet o f th e though t o f hi s time , an d h e i s at leas t closel y relate d t o th e realistic trend . Eugene Fromenti n (1820-1876 ) wa s indee d a n unusua l figure. I n Meyer Schapiro' s words , h e wa s tha t rar e man , "a n accomplishe d artis t who wa s als o a first rat e writer " (Diderot Studies £ , pp. ^ff.) . Hi s plac e i n French letter s o f th e nineteent h centur y i s wel l establishe d b y hi s famous nove l Dominique an d b y hi s much-rea d trave l book , A Summer in the Sahara. But fo r decade s h e wa s als o active , an d wel l known , a s a successful professiona l painter . I t wa s no t surprising , therefore , tha t i n 1862 th e edito r o f a n influentia l periodical , th e Revue des deux mondes, i n which Dominique ha d appeare d i n installments , suggeste d t o Fromenti n that h e mak e a furthe r contributio n t o th e journa l i n th e field o f ar t criticism. Anothe r thirtee n year s passe d befor e Fromenti n responde d t o this suggestion . I n July o f 187 ^ he visite d th e museum s an d churche s o f Belgium an d Holland , an d thoug h hi s journey laste d n o mor e tha n thre e weeks, i t resulte d i n a lon g serie s o f articles , eventuall y collecte d i n a n imposing volume , Les maitres d'autrefois (1876) , whic h wa s quickl y trans lated int o Englis h a s The Old Masters of Belgium and Holland (1882). 77 Although Fromentin' s Maitres d'autrefois appeare d onl y i n th e mid-1870s , its roots , bot h intellectuall y an d emotionally , ar e t o b e foun d i n th e early 1860 s o f th e nineteent h century . I t belongs , then , t o th e tim e i n 343

Modern Theories of Art which th e differen t facet s o f th e realisti c attitud e wer e bein g crystal lized. A brie f observatio n o n th e characte r o f thi s uniqu e text , The Old Masters of Belgium and Holland, ma y her e b e i n order . I n a shor t preface , Fromentin himsel f tell s th e reade r wha t h e i s t o expect . "Th e book, " he says , "should b e lik e a sort o f tal k abou t painting , wher e th e painter s would recogniz e thei r habits , wher e me n o f th e worl d woul d lear n t o better kno w painter s an d painting " (xliii) . Hi s tex t doe s no t indee d pertain t o an y o f th e establishe d genre s o f ar t theory . Readin g The Old Masters, on e i s reminded , a s Meye r Schapir o ha s observed , o f "th e salo n review, th e trave l book , th e critica l essa y an d th e privat e journal. " I t i s not, no r doe s i t clai m t o be , a scientifi c o r philosophica l text . Th e paintings discusse d ar e no t groupe d accordin g t o an y intrinsi c principle ; rather the y ar e deal t wit h accordin g t o th e orde r i n whic h Fromenti n saw the m whil e followin g hi s itinerary . Hi s comments ar e writte n unde r the immediat e impressio n o f th e work s o f ar t h e wa s lookin g at , an d h e does no t hesitat e t o openl y expres s hi s emotiona l reaction s t o wha t h e sees. I n al l thes e respects , Fromentin' s tex t doe s resembl e a salo n review, thoug h th e painting s themselve s ar e par t o f th e grea t heritag e of th e past . I t shoul d perhap s b e note d tha t thi s kin d o f writin g o n great historica l ar t wa s no t altogethe r isolate d i n hi s day . Twent y year s before Fromentin , anothe r well-know n author , Jaco b Burckhardt , trav eled i n Italy , notin g hi s livel y impression s o n work s o f ar t i n th e orde r he sa w them . Thes e effort s forme d Burckhardt' s Cicerone, publishe d i n iB

SS.

Fromentin's choic e o f subjec t matte r i s o f particula r significanc e i n our context . Th e whol e wor k treat s th e ar t o f th e Lowlands . Th e cor e of th e discussio n i s devote d t o Ruben s (pp . 18-107 ) an d th e Dutc h masters o f th e seventeent h centur y (Par t II) , especiall y Rembrand t (pp . 218—313). The last , rathe r brie f sectio n deal s wit h earl y Flemis h art , or , as th e autho r says , "Va n Eyc k an d Memling " (pp . 317—339) . I n nine teenth-century France , a s w e hav e seen , a concer n wit h th e ar t o f th e Netherlands wa s characteristi c o f th e tast e an d moo d i n whic h realis m flowered. Fromenti n clearl y regard s hi s investigation s o f th e Lowlan d masters a s a mean s o f educatin g contemporar y artist s an d o f directin g them i n thei r work . I n othe r words , h e adopt s th e traditiona l ai m o f ar t 344

The Artist theory. Ou r autho r know s th e educationa l valu e o f a model . Schools , he says , still teac h student s ho w t o writ e Frenc h pros e b y making the m study suc h master s a s Pascal , L a Bruyere, an d Bossue t (xliv) . Shoul d no t the sam e principl e b e applie d t o painters ? B y analyzin g th e master s o f Belgium an d Holland , Fromenti n hope d t o lea d contemporar y paintin g in a specifi c direction , an d t o sav e i t fro m aberration s an d weaknesses . The stud y o f Dutc h paintin g had , i n fact , alread y exerte d it s beneficia l influence o n moder n art . Dutc h landscap e paintin g serve d a s a mode l for earl y nineteenth-centur y Frenc h painters . "Thi s tim e Hollan d foun d the righ t hearers ; i t taugh t u s t o see , t o feel , t o paint " (206-207) . What, w e mus t no w ask , justifie s ou r inclusio n o f Fromenti n i n th e broad contex t o f realism ? Becaus e realis m wa s no t a well-define d doctrine, bu t rathe r a broa d attitude , on e artist' s o r writer' s link s t o this tren d coul d diffe r widel y fro m tha t o f others . Severa l component s in Fromentin' s intellectua l makeu p sho w hi s affinit y t o realism . T o begin with , hi s desir e fo r truthfulnes s t o reality , th e intens e wis h t o b e "close t o life, " whil e i t canno t b e considere d a mar k distinctiv e o f realism, shoul d b e note d i n th e presen t context . T o b e successfu l a s a painter o f Nort h Africa n scenes , s o h e ha d alread y fel t earl y i n hi s life , he ha d t o g o t o Afric a an d t o observe , fro m clos e by , lif e amon g th e Arabs. H e wa s no t conten t wit h th e half-romanti c imager y o f Orienta l life, a s i t wa s know n i n Parisia n letter s an d paintings . H e wante d t o se e the peopl e i n thei r natura l environment , t o observ e thei r costumes , settings, an d habit s o f life . Th e desir e t o directl y observ e one' s subject , to sa y i t onc e again , i s no t i n itsel f a sig n tha t on e i s wha t w e woul d call a "realist, " bu t i t doe s sho w disconten t wit h th e othe r grea t trend s of th e tim e (Neoclassicis m an d Romanticism) , an d i t disclose s a n atti tude tha t i s ver y clos e t o tha t o f realism . More important , thoug h les s tangibl e i n ou r presen t context , i s a specific featur e i n Fromentin' s menta l makeup , namely , hi s preoccupa tion wit h permanence . I t ha s bee n sai d tha t th e concer n wit h th e permanent ma y als o b e discerne d i n hi s literar y work : h e love d th e solid, unchangeabl e natur e o f th e desert. 78 In hi s treatmen t o f painting , we discer n a simila r attitude : h e i s intereste d i n th e stabl e essenc e o f things rathe r tha n i n thei r activit y i n life . I n th e great pictoria l tradition , so Fromenti n believes , th e emphasi s wa s alway s o n man' s stabl e nature . 34£

Modern Theories of Art The declin e o f paintin g began , h e argues , whe n th e focu s o f attentio n shifted t o th e stor y an d th e anecdote . A t leas t implicitly , then , Fromen tin condemn s histor y painting . Th e concentratio n o n th e stable , th e unchanging, th e permanen t lead s t o a directio n o f though t tha t wa s close t o realism . His attractio n t o stabilit y i s linke d wit h hi s view s o n reality , a t leas t insofar a s tha t realit y i s th e subjec t o f artisti c representation . Onc e again w e hav e t o stres s tha t Fromentin' s view s ar e no t clearl y an d systematically presented—h e i s n o philosopher , a s we hav e said ; yet i n reading hi s livel y pros e w e ca n gai n a notion o f wha t h e believe d realit y to be . Th e outsid e world , Fromenti n believed , i s ful l o f differen t appearances, i t display s a n inexhaustibl e diversit y o f shapes . Behin d tha t bewildering variety , however , ther e ar e simpl e forms . I n th e multitud e of variou s shape s i t i s actuall y thes e simpl e form s tha t ar e countlessl y repeated, i n ever-changin g combinations . Th e world , h e say s i n a n interesting metaphor , i s a dictionar y ful l o f synonyms. 79 Th e origina l idioms, s o w e understand , ar e stabl e an d unchanging . I n Fromentin' s view ther e is , then , a kin d o f a simplisti c Platonism . i t i s no t ver y fruitful t o as k ho w h e derive d thes e views . Variou s version s o f Platon ism were , o f course , availabl e t o hi m whereve r h e turned , an d tha t there i s indee d a Platoni c influenc e a t wor k i n Fromenti n w e ca n perhaps se e fro m formulation s suc h a s "Le s idee s son t simples , le s formes multiples, " a phrase h e use s in speakin g o f reality a s a dictionary . What precisel y thes e elementar y form s ar e i n Fromentin' s though t i t would b e difficul t t o say . Thei r functio n however , tha t o f bein g a stabl e foundation fo r a bewilderingl y changin g worl d o f appearances , i s ob vious. His thought s abou t th e artist' s tas k ar e linke d wit h hi s belief s abou t the natur e o f reality . T o b e sure , h e speak s abou t th e artis t an d hi s work i n man y ways . Thu s h e write s wit h grea t freshnes s abou t th e different painters ' us e o f colo r an d o f thei r brus h strokes , an d savor s the marvelou s textur e o f th e canvas' s surface ; h e perceive s th e moo d o f an artist , an d hi s harmon y wit h th e natur e tha t produce d hi m ("O f al l the Dutc h painters , Ruysdae l i s th e on e wh o mos t nobl y resemble s hi s country"—p. 183 ) But h e als o ask s ho w th e artis t relate s t o th e reality , as h e understand s tha t concept . Now , Fromenti n altogethe r reject s th e 346

The Artist Romantic visio n o f th e artis t a s a n origina l creator . Th e painter , h e believes, doe s no t inven t shapes , h e doe s no t produc e somethin g tha t i s radically new . Hi s distinctiv e characteristi c i s his ability t o penetrat e th e surface o f life , t o discove r th e primar y forms , an d t o presen t the m t o the spectator' s eye . Th e artis t thu s show s u s th e inne r structur e o f th e world.

V. TH E GREA T MASTER S I. INTRODUCTIO N

The studen t surveyin g Frenc h ar t theor y aroun d th e middl e o f th e nineteenth centur y sometime s ha s th e feeling , s o h e imagines , tha t th e surveyor drawin g a ma p o f a vas t plai n mus t experience : h e finds directions fo r orientation , h e notice s broa d stream s an d surfaces , bu t few ar e th e feature s tha t forcefull y arres t hi s gaz e b y thei r individual , unique shape . I n th e imagine d landscap e o f mid-nineteenth-centur y French ar t literature , ther e is , however, on e mountai n range . See n fro m afar, i t dominate s th e surveyor' s field o f vision . Tha t mountai n rang e i s the wor k an d though t o f Delacroi x an d Baudelaire . There ar e obviou s difficultie s i n dealing , i n th e presen t context , wit h their theoretica l legacy . Bot h wer e grea t an d origina l artists , an d possi bly fo r thi s reaso n the y ar e difficul t t o classify , t o file unde r accepte d labels. Ca n the y b e see n a s representin g thei r time ? On e hesitate s t o give a simpl e affirmativ e answer . I n man y respect s the y d o indee d reveal, mor e sharpl y tha n mos t othe r thinkers , som e o f th e centra l problems o f thei r day . Bu t the y als o kee p alive , while transformin g it , a great dea l o f th e heritag e o f th e past . Bot h carr y o n wit h som e components o f th e Romanti c vision . In thi s regard , thei r idea s ar e linked wit h strat a o f th e past . A t th e sam e time , however , bot h Delacroix an d Baudelair e ar e widel y accepte d an d recognize d a s th e pioneers an d trailblazer s o f modernity . Though the y ar e her e groupe d together , i t woul d b e a mistak e t o overemphasize th e agreemen t betwee n them . Delacroi x an d Baudelaire , even i f w e conside r onl y thei r view s o n painting , wer e no t on e person 347

Modern Theories of Art ality wit h tw o faces , a s i t were . I t i s true tha t th e wor k an d ar t though t of th e tw o overlappe d an d intersected . Baudelaire , a s one knows , wrot e extensively o n Delacroix , an d w e shal l shortl y com e bac k t o som e o f these texts . Delacroi x wa s profoundl y influence d b y Baudelaire' s view s and criticism . Bu t i n spit e o f thes e stron g interaction s ther e wer e als o tensions betwee n thei r ideas . Thes e tension s deriv e i n par t fro m thei r thought bein g roote d i n differen t arts , paintin g an d poetry , an d i n par t from certai n difference s i n ho w the y looke d a t th e problem s the y approached. Whil e the y canno t b e isolated fro m eac h other , the y shoul d nevertheless b e analyze d separately . 2. DELACROI X

The Character of Delacroix's Writings. Eugene Delacroi x (1798—1863) , on e need hardl y say , i s on e o f th e best-know n o f nineteenth-centur y paint ers. H e wa s also—an d this , too , i s wel l known—on e o f th e mos t articulate an d literary-minde d o f artists. Delacroix' s nee d fo r conceptua l articulation i s reflecte d i n th e considerabl e volum e o f writing , mostl y devoted t o painting , tha t i s his literar y legacy . Non e o f thi s writin g eve r achieved a final an d systemati c form . I t remaine d scattere d i n letter s and journals , writte n unde r specia l conditions , an d no t compose d i n well-balanced form . Ye t thes e notes , though fragmentary , ar e sometime s quite extensive , an d the y ofte n enabl e th e studen t t o reconstruc t th e artist's view s i n som e detail . Delacroi x himsel f wa s painfull y awar e o f the fragmentar y natur e o f hi s notes . I n 18^7 , h e recorde d i n hi s diar y his intentio n t o transfor m the m int o a Dictionnaire des beaux-arts.so Th e Dictionnaire, on e shoul d remember , wa s a t th e tim e a n accepte d for m for a highl y systemati c presentatio n o f view s o n art . Viollet-le-Duc , for instance , publishe d hi s dictionnaires i n thos e ver y sam e years. 81 Delacroix's intentio n wa s neve r realized , an d hi s literary wor k remaine d incomplete. Bu t hi s desir e i s i n itsel f importan t testimon y t o ho w h e saw th e theor y o f art . In discussin g Delacroix' s theor y o f art , on e canno t forge t tha t th e author wa s one o f the mos t distinc t an d origina l painter s o f th e century . In hi s writing s on e indee d ofte n perceive s hi s intimat e feelin g for , an d first-hand acquaintanc e with , th e craf t o f paintin g a s wel l a s hi s famil 348

The Artist iarity wit h th e creativ e process . I t is precisel y becaus e o f thi s awarenes s of Delacroix's ow n wor k tha t on e i s often force d t o not e a n incongruit y — a t time s obvious , a t time s onl y adumbrated—betwee n hi s artisti c and hi s theoretica l production . I shoul d therefor e lik e t o emphasiz e once agai n tha t w e ar e her e studyin g Delacroix' s theory , no t hi s painting. Whil e w e shal l hav e t o disregar d th e latter , i t i s importan t t o observe tha t th e incongruit y itsel f i s significant evidenc e o f th e fac t tha t an artist's theor y i s not necessaril y a mirror image o f hi s pictoria l opus . The theor y o f ar t i s a n intellectua l pursui t wit h it s ow n merit s an d it s own character . Delacroix's reflection s o n ar t ma y b e fragmentary , bu t the y ar e s o extensive an d varie d tha t w e fee l w e ar e entitle d t o spea k o f a more o r less complet e doctrine . I t i s possible , therefore , t o as k wha t th e pivota l theme o f thi s doctrin e was . I n othe r words , wha t wa s th e proble m around which Delacroix' s teachin g revolved ? Here, i t seems, th e answe r is easily given. Th e subjec t tha t fascinate d Delacroi x an d dominate d hi s reflections o n ar t was th e creativ e proces s itself . Tim e and again he trie s to unriddl e th e myster y o f ho w a wor k o f ar t come s int o being , an d what propertie s th e artis t mus t posses s i n orde r t o b e abl e t o shap e hi s work. Hi s effort s t o understan d th e essenc e o f artisti c imaginatio n ar e set i n this context. Befor e turnin g t o a discussion o f this central subject , however, i t ma y b e usefu l t o briefl y surve y a t leas t on e othe r theme , though i t remaine d margina l i n th e artist' s thought . Wha t I hav e i n mind i s the questio n o f th e ultimat e goal o f painting . Although Delacroi x di d no t trea t thi s subjec t systematically , w e ar e in n o doub t o f hi s majo r emphases . H e sa w a painting a s a vehicl e fo r communication betwee n souls , th e sou l o f th e artis t an d the sou l o f th e spectator. Amon g th e note s mad e i n preparatio n fo r th e projecte d Dictionnaire, w e rea d th e entr y writte n o n January 2£ , 18C7 : "The majo r source o f interes t [i n th e wor k o f art ] come s fro m th e sou l [o f th e artist], an d i t goe s i n a n irresistibl e manne r int o th e sou l o f th e spectator." The wor k o f ar t serve s a s a bridge betwee n th e sou l o f th e artist an d tha t o f th e spectator. 82 The affinit y o f thi s vie w t o a trend o f Romantic though t doe s no t hav e t o b e show n i n detail . An d ye t w e should not e tha t th e emphasis o n reachin g th e spectator radicall y differ s from a view, als o found i n Romanticism, tha t perceive s th e work o f art 349

Modern Theories of Art as a self-expressio n o f th e artist , conceive d an d produce d i n isolatio n from an y audience . I n Delacroix , i t come s quit e clos e t o a rhetorica l concept o f art . Th e affective , emotiona l impac t o f th e paintin g i s it s ultimate goal . Th e locu s o f th e wor k o f art , bot h i n it s productio n an d its effect , i s th e soul . (I n passing , on e canno t hel p noticin g tha t i n thi s scheme o f things , littl e roo m i s left fo r th e textur e o f th e canva s o r th e marvels o f th e brus h stroke . Ther e i s a n obviou s an d wid e differenc e between th e characte r o f Delacroix' s ar t an d th e natur e o f hi s thought) . The Aim of Painting. Tha t th e centra l ai m o f a paintin g o r statut e i s t o move th e beholder' s soul , i t nee d hardl y b e said , i s no t a ne w idea . Th e student wh o ha s followe d th e unfoldin g o f ar t theor y ha s see n variou s and repeate d proclamation s tha t th e picture' s o r th e statue' s expressiv e effect o n th e spectato r i s th e artist' s ultimat e goal , an d art' s ultimat e justification. Fro m Plato , wh o sa w a n inheren t dange r i n th e powe r t o move th e spectator , t o th e Counter-reformation , whic h sa w i n tha t power a gif t o f God , t o b e use d fo r th e righ t an d prope r purpose , almost everyon e agree d tha t movin g th e spectator' s min d an d sou l i s what ar t attempt s t o do . Delacroi x inherite d hi s descriptio n o f th e goa l of ar t fro m tradition , an d ther e ca n b e littl e doub t tha t h e wa s awar e o f this, an d sa w himsel f a s a link i n a great historica l chain . While Delacroi x followe d traditio n a s regards th e ai m o f painting, h e seems t o hav e diverge d fro m it s cor e i n hi s view s o n ho w thi s goal i s t o be reached , tha t is , wha t mean s th e artis t employ s an d wha t method s he adopt s i n orde r t o mov e th e spectator . Le t u s recall , i n broades t outline, how , betwee n th e fifteenth an d th e eighteent h centuries , artist s and writer s wh o preache d th e gospe l o f th e affectiv e valu e o f th e wor k of ar t though t tha t thi s valu e coul d b e realized . Al l thes e generation s believed tha t histor y ha s bequeathe d t o th e artis t a vas t store-hous e o f configurations—scenes, compositions , gestures , colors , an d s o forth — that ar e prove n mean s o f conveyin g experience s an d evokin g emotion s in th e beholder . T o b e sure , thi s belie f wa s state d i n a variet y o f ways , with a wealt h o f shade s an d nuances . Th e differen t artist s an d author s of cours e believe d tha t th e creativ e artist' s persona l experienc e migh t add to , o r intensify , th e expressiv e powe r o f th e inherite d motifs . Essentially, however , the y wer e al l committe d t o th e assumptio n tha t 3£°

The Artist the beholde r i s successfull y stirre d b y mean s derive d fro m thi s grea t tradition. Delacroi x emphasize s othe r components . I n hi s writing s h e never explicitl y negate s th e expressiv e significanc e o f th e inherite d pictorial languag e (in hi s actual wor k a s an artist, he made extensive us e of it , a s w e al l know) . However , h e give s ver y littl e attentio n t o rhetorical formula e i n his theoretica l reflections . Instea d of th e languag e of cultur e an d tradition , h e propose s anothe r featur e a s th e mainsprin g of creativ e power . Imagination. On e particula r facult y distinguishe s th e artist : i t i s th e faculty o f imagination . I n 18^7 , Delacroi x note s i n hi s journal : "Imagination. I t is the primar y faculty o f the artist." 83 This i s only one o f many passages i n whic h h e stresse s imagination . Hi s friend s sa w Delacroi x himself a s th e artis t wh o wa s dominate d b y imagination . Baudelaire , i n his famou s essa y "Th e Lif e an d Wor k o f Eugen e Delacroix, " describe s imagination a s th e essenc e o f ou r artist' s work . "Al l th e facultie s o f th e human sou l mus t b e subordinate d t o th e imagination." 84 Th e ful l subordination o f al l th e facultie s t o th e imaginatio n i s jus t wha t Dela croix wa s believed t o have achieved, and this is what he himself though t leads t o movin g th e spectator' s soul . Imagination , then , a s I have said , is th e centra l them e o f his though t o n art. Both i n hi s persona l note s an d i n hi s publishe d writing s Delacroi x sang th e praise s o f th e artist' s imagination . Bu t i t di d no t tak e hi m lon g to encounte r th e basi c dilemm a tha t al l earlie r prais e o f th e artisti c imagination ha d faced . Doe s th e artist' s imaginatio n inven t th e imag e he produce s ou t o f a complete void ? I n othe r words , i s th e productio n of a work o f art a "creation ou t o f nothing," a creatio ex nihilo, t o us e th e medieval term ? O r doe s artisti c imaginatio n rathe r consis t primaril y o f a certain freedo m t o shif t an d arrange th e image s tha t i n themselves ar e not th e artist' s invention , bu t ar e draw n fro m "nature, " tha t is , fro m our experienc e o f th e "outside " world ? Suc h woul d b e th e mor e philosophical formulatio n o f th e unavoidabl e question . I n art theory th e question canno t remai n purel y philosophica l o r only a matter o f princi ple; it ha s obvious implication s fo r bot h th e ar t critic an d the practicin g artist. Th e criti c wil l as k whethe r originalit y (b e i t newness , inventive ness, or whatever els e this problematic term may designate) i s the major 3£i

Modern Theories of Art value i n a n artist' s work , an d whethe r i t shoul d b e ranke d superio r t o his othe r achievements , suc h a s keepin g traditio n alive . The languag e o f criticism i n ou r ow n day , a s is well known , clearl y show s ho w tenaciou s such question s stil l are . Bu t th e implication s fo r th e practicin g artis t ar e perhaps o f greate r importance . Shoul d th e painte r giv e hi s fantas y fre e rein s o tha t h e ca n conjur e u p o n hi s canva s whateve r strike s hi s fancy , or shoul d h e rathe r limi t hi s imaginatio n b y obeyin g a cal l fo r natura l similitude an d b y adherin g t o rationa l rules ? In th e middl e o f th e nineteent h century , tw o significan t intellectua l forces combine d agains t th e view , o r demand , tha t th e artis t giv e fre e rein t o hi s imagination . On e o f thes e wa s th e grea t Frenc h traditio n o f believing i n "reason " an d i n th e academi c rule s derive d fro m it ; th e other wa s th e influentia l thinkin g o f a dynamicall y growin g "realism, " then a t it s mos t vigorou s stage . Delacroix , a s w e shal l immediatel y see , accepted th e dominatio n o f "rules " and trie d t o mak e i t par t o f hi s ow n doctrine. Th e claim s an d assumption s o f "realism " h e rejecte d ou t o f hand. Readin g hi s notes , particularl y thos e writte n i n th e i8^os , i t i s not har d t o fee l tha t h e sa w th e realisti c attitud e a s a n immediat e danger. I n hi s dispute s wit h realism , Delacroix' s formulation s ofte n ge t more pointed , an d probabl y mor e extreme , tha n h e himsel f woul d hav e wished the m t o be . Th e theor y o f realism , w e remember , refuse d t o grant th e imaginatio n an y significan t functio n i n th e creativ e process . Nature herself , s o tha t theor y held , provide s th e form s an d motif s th e artist needs . I n representin g reality , th e artis t i n fac t ha s t o tak e car e that hi s imaginatio n doe s no t interfer e wit h th e prope r an d truthfu l perception o f th e object s h e depicts . I t i s mainl y agains t thi s attitud e that Delacroi x argues . I n th e artist' s work , h e claims , th e functionin g and movin g o f th e imaginatio n neve r stop . Whe n lookin g a t nature , th e artist canno t d o awa y wit h hi s imagination . O n th e contrary : "I n th e presence o f natur e herself, " s o h e note s o n Septembe r i , 18^9 , "i t i s our imaginatio n tha t make s th e picture." 85 An d a s i f t o strengthe n hi s apology fo r th e artist' s imagination , h e compare s paintin g wit h photog raphy. A paintin g an d a photographi c sho t o f th e sam e site , h e say s i n the not e jus t quoted , ar e no t th e sam e thing . "Whe n a photographe r takes a view, al l you eve r se e i s a part cu t of f fro m a whole: th e edg e o f the pictur e i s a s interestin g a s th e center ; al l yo u ca n d o i s t o suppos e 3P

The Artist an ensemble , o f whic h yo u se e onl y a portion , apparentl y chose n b y chance." I t i s worth ou r whil e t o recal l tha t Delacroi x wa s intereste d i n photography an d tha t h e di d no t rejec t th e ne w medium . Alread y five years earlier , h e ha d describe d photograph y a s a "tangibl e demonstra tion o f th e tru e desig n i n nature." 8 6 I t i s als o wel l know n tha t h e sa w in photographi c picture s a welcom e substitut e fo r th e natura l model . But bot h th e photograp h an d th e liv e mode l ar e th e artist' s poin t o f departure, the y ar e neve r hi s product . Thi s ma y als o explai n th e difference h e suggest s i n th e sentenc e jus t quoted . In th e photograph , everything—objects an d shapes , orde r an d composition—i s furnishe d by nature ; th e edge s ar e just a s significant a s the center . In th e painting , shaped b y imaginatio n eve n i f th e painte r wa s lookin g a t natur e whil e working, th e hierarch y o f significance , th e distinctio n betwee n th e center an d th e margins , i s the artist' s product . With al l of Delacroix' s defens e o f th e artist' s imagination , h e i s not a radical "fantaisiste. " T o produc e a wor k o f art , h e believes , th e imagi nation canno t b e divorce d fro m carefu l observatio n o f nature , an d i t cannot d o without—an d surel y canno t replace— a syste m o f rules . Imagination i n itself , take n a s somethin g self-sufficient , i s no t hi s goal . It i s eve n a danger . Unbridle d imagination , suc h a s h e believe d t o hav e recognized i n th e poetr y o f Edga r Alla n Poe , i s extraordinaire becaus e i t is extra-humaine. 87 The poet' s excessiv e flights o f fanc y shoul d b e tem pered, an d th e sam e requiremen t hold s goo d fo r th e visua l arts . Dela croix admire d Rubens , bu t i n tha t master' s painting s h e sometime s finds too muc h imagination . Delacroix's theoretica l positio n o n th e questio n o f imaginatio n ca n best b e describe d a s restrained , or , a s Georg e Mra s put s it , "conserva tive" o r "moderate." 88 Thi s positio n implie s importan t conclusions . Though h e sa w i n imaginatio n th e artist' s centra l faculty , Delacroi x never believe d tha t th e creativ e process , th e proces s i n whic h th e imagination materialize s int o a wor k o f art , i n an y wa y resemble s a creatio ex nihilo. Artistic imaginatio n consist s i n th e orderin g an d combin ing o f feature s an d forms , bu t th e form s themselves—th e "ra w mate rial," a s i t were , tha t serve s th e artist' s imagination—ar e no t produce d by th e fantasy ; the y ar e draw n fro m nature , fro m ou r experience , an d even fro m ou r cultura l heritage . Tha t th e artis t tak e hi s subjec t matte r 3J3

Modern Theories of Art from natur e o r fro m literatur e seem s t o Delacroi x a s natura l a s i t seemed t o a Renaissanc e artist . What Delacroi x ha d t o sa y abou t th e rol e o f th e imaginatio n doe s not consis t primaril y i n a n analysi s o f th e conceptua l term s use d i n treating th e subject . Hi s originality emerge s mos t clearl y i n dealin g wit h a seemingl y practica l device , which , however , als o involve s a genera l problem characteristi c o f th e moder n age . This them e involve s bot h th e spectator's imaginatio n an d th e sketc h a s a n ar t form . Nowher e doe s Delacroix see m t o hav e deal t wit h thi s questio n i n a systematic fashion , and ye t on e feel s confiden t i n reconstructin g hi s views . W e ca n ap proach th e subjec t fro m tw o ends , tha t o f imaginatio n an d tha t o f th e sketch.

The Sketch. Imagination, I have frequentl y ha d t o repea t i n th e cours e o f this volume , i s on e o f th e oldes t an d mos t centra l theme s o f reflectio n on art . N o wonder , then , tha t th e notio n underwen t man y shift s an d changes, an d tha t w e encounte r i t i n a bewilderin g variet y o f guises . One thin g seem s t o hav e remaine d stabl e throughout : i n discussin g imagination, on e alway s ha d the artist's imagination i n mind . I t wa s onl y in th e moder n ag e tha t th e beholder' s imaginatio n bega n t o receiv e more consideration , an d tha t i t wa s see n a s par t o f th e aestheti c problem. Th e spectato r lookin g a t a picture , s o i t wa s felt , wa s no t altogether passive , an d h e canno t b e compare d t o molte n wa x ont o which a sea l i s impressed . O n th e contrary , th e spectato r i s a n activ e partner, a s i t were , i n bringin g abou t tha t uniqu e encounte r betwee n man an d wor k i n whic h th e pictur e o r th e statu e acquire s ful l life . Onc e the beholde r wa s perceive d i n thi s ne w role , i t wa s natura l tha t th e workings o f hi s min d shoul d arous e curiosity . Ho w doe s th e spectato r exercise hi s imaginatio n i n th e proces s o f experiencin g a painting , an d how ca n th e painte r stimulat e an d direc t th e spectator' s imagination ? To judg e fro m variou s scattere d remarks , Delacroi x mus t hav e bee n concerned wit h thes e question s ove r a long period . Already i n 1853 , Delacroi x wondered , a s w e lear n fro m a not e h e made i n hi s Journal on Ma y 9 , about th e strang e effec t disproportio n ca n have o n th e beholder . Fou r year s later , h e obviousl y stil l considere d th e 3 £4

The Artist subject importan t enoug h t o rerea d wha t h e ha d writte n an d t o amplif y his forme r ideas . I said that th e sketch of a picture of a monument—and th e same is true of a rui n or , i n a word, an y wor k o f th e imaginatio n i n whic h part s ar e lackin g —ought t o reac t o n th e sou l i n just th e proportio n tha t w e hav e t o ad d t o the work, while it i s producing it s impression o n us. I add that perfec t works , like thos e o f a Racin e o r a Mozart , d o not , a t th e first moment , produc e a s much effec t a s thos e o f les s correc t o r eve n careles s geniuses , wh o giv e yo u salient parts standing out in all the stronger relief because others, beside them, are vague or completely bad. 89 From Delacroix' s formulatio n on e coul d ge t th e mistake n impressio n that h e wa s discoverin g th e powe r o f th e sketch . I n fact , th e pictoria l sketch wa s no t a ne w subject ; Delacroi x wa s her e takin g u p a commo n theme, on e tha t ha d give n ris e t o a continuin g an d heate d controversy . But h e wa s takin g i t u p fro m a n angl e tha t wa s unusua l fo r hi s time . To understan d th e significanc e an d specia l characte r o f Delacroix' s position, w e shal l hav e t o devot e a fe w observation s t o it s broa d background. Th e sketch , needles s t o say , ha d bee n know n fo r a ver y long time ; i t wa s als o a forma l par t o f academi c aesthetics . Ye t i n spite , or perhap s because , o f it s ag e an d wid e diffusion , i t carrie d a variet y o f meanings, an d i t wa s associate d wit h a multitude o f forms . T o spea k o f a "sketch, " therefore , wa s fa r fro m self-eviden t i n meaning ; no r wer e the reason s fo r appreciating , o r rejecting , th e sketc h obviou s i n them selves. The moder n terms , al l i n French , wer e take n ove r fro m th e languag e of th e Italia n workshops. 90 Th e Frenc h esquisse, commo n i n th e nine teenth century , i s derive d fro m th e olde r Italia n schizzo, while ehauche, equally commo n i n Delacroix' s day , i s derive d fro m th e Italia n abozza. In th e Italia n workshop s o f th e seventeent h an d eighteent h centurie s these term s preserve d thei r origina l meaning ; the y referre d t o th e stage s of preparin g a wor k o f art . Th e grea t codifie r o f Italia n worksho p an d critical languag e i n th e lat e seventeent h century , Filipp o Baldinucci , ha s left u s a clea r formulatio n o f wha t thes e notion s mean t a s technica l terms. Schizzo, he writes , "th e painter s sa y of their lighte r touche s o f th e brush o r th e pencil , [touches ] b y whic h the y indicat e thei r idea s 3SS

Modern Theories of Art (concetti) withou t bringin g th e [different ] part s t o perfection . Thi s the y call sketching." 91 An d o f abbozzare h e write s tha t i t i s "sai d o f thos e primary feature s tha t th e painter s mak e o n canvase s o r panels , thu s beginning t o shad e th e figures i n a gros s manne r (alia grossa), and the n turning t o othe r colors." 92 In th e cours e o f th e eighteent h an d particularl y i n th e earl y nine teenth century , th e sketc h bega n t o b e see n i n a differen t light . No w the esquisse wa s considere d no t merel y a s a documen t o f a preparator y stage, a stag e considere d significan t onl y becaus e th e final result , th e completed wor k o f art , i s o f importance . Certai n expressiv e an d aes thetic qualitie s wer e no w bein g discovered , an d highl y appreciated , an d they wer e recognize d a s characteristi c o f th e sketch . I n th e intellectua l and artisti c atmospher e o f moder n France , th e ne w appreciatio n o f th e sketch wa s no t a n isolate d phenomenon . It s ful l significanc e become s manifest onl y whe n w e realiz e tha t i t i s par t o f a large r syndrome . Jus t as ther e wa s a hig h regar d fo r th e sketch , ther e wa s a growing appreci ation o f drawings , bozzetti, an d unfinishe d o r eve n spoile d work s b y great masters . On e shoul d als o recal l tha t i t wa s i n th e nineteent h century tha t th e unfinishe d statue , th e nonjinito, bega n t o exer t a magic power ove r th e mind s o f artists , critics , an d broa d audiences . Delacroi x himself, i n th e origina l not e o f Ma y 9 , 18^3 , tha t w e hav e referre d t o above, record s tha t "th e effec t produce d b y th e statue s o f Michelangel o is du e t o certai n disproportionat e o r unfinishe d part s whic h augmen t the importanc e o f th e part s whic h ar e complete." 93 Som e year s ago , H. W . Janso n investigate d thi s syndrom e o f appreciatin g th e unfin ished.94 Wha t h e call s u the autonomou s fragment"—th e torso , th e intentionally unfinishe d piec e o f statuary—is , a s h e says , on e o f th e most importan t legacie s o f nineteenth-centur y sculpture . Thi s "legacy " is, o f course , th e produc t o f th e sam e attitud e tha t mad e peopl e admir e a sketch . Tha t a piec e o f sculptur e coul d hav e bee n compose d fro m th e outset a s a fragmen t (a s i n th e eighteent h centur y a n edifice , usuall y i n a garden , coul d hav e bee n planne d an d constructe d a s a "ruin") 9 5 i s a n important testimon y t o a n attitud e tha t i s specificall y "modern. " I n Antiquity an d i n th e Middl e Ages , unfinished work s wer e unhesitatingl y discarded i f i t wa s believe d tha t the y coul d no t b e completed . I n th e 30 356

The Artist nineteenth century , the y cam e t o b e considere d a s "token s o f genius/ ' they wer e bough t a t hig h prices , collected , an d studied . Precisely becaus e w e ar e her e face d wit h a broa d an d comple x attitude, w e canno t avoi d inquirin g int o it s underlyin g motive s an d asking wha t i t i s tha t account s fo r it s surprisin g power . Severa l consid erations—obviously interrelated , ye t no t identica l wit h eac h other — offer themselve s t o th e student . On e circumstanc e i s th e inheren t proximity o f th e sketc h t o th e proces s o f creatin g a work o f art . I t i s i n the natur e o f this proces s tha t it s trace s ar e effaced : th e close r th e wor k of ar t come s t o completion , th e fewe r trace s o f it s becomin g remai n visible. Th e grea t classicists , preachin g th e gospe l o f th e finished an d polished work , indee d explicitl y require d th e wipin g awa y o f an y residues o f th e stage s i n whic h i t wa s shaped. 96 I n painting , th e onl y clear an d visibl e vestig e o f th e creativ e proces s i s th e sketch . Th e hig h regard fo r th e creativ e process , therefore , necessaril y lead s t o a n appre ciation o f th e sketch . Another reaso n i n suppor t o f th e moder n appreciatio n o f th e sketc h is sometime s reflecte d i n eighteenth - an d nineteenth-centur y thought : it i s th e belie f tha t th e sketc h reflect s th e artist' s characte r an d person ality mor e clearl y tha n doe s th e finished work . Onc e agai n w e mus t g o back t o Diderot , th e thinke r s o crucia l i n th e emergenc e o f moder n ar t criticism. "Sketches, " h e wrote , "generall y posses s a warmt h tha t pic tures d o not . The y represen t a stat e o f ardou r an d pur e verv e o n th e artist's part , wit h n o admixtur e o f th e affecte d elaboratio n introduce d by thought : throug h th e sketc h th e painter' s ver y sou l i s poure d fort h on th e canvas." 97 Diderot's prais e o f th e sketc h announce s a distinctio n destine d t o become popula r i n th e nineteent h an d twentiet h centuries . Th e finish of a painting, o r sculpture , i s seen a s a matter o f a broadly accepte d bu t —for thi s ver y reason—impersona l culture . Th e sketch , o n th e othe r hand, i s though t t o preced e th e levelin g impac t o f tha t anonymou s culture; i t reveal s th e individual , th e uniqu e personalit y tha t i s th e tru e origin o f the wor k o f art. T o pu t i t wit h som e exaggeration , th e creativ e process i s pictured a s a clash betwee n th e artist' s individua l personality , on th e on e hand , an d society' s impersona l culture , o n th e other . Th e 357

Modern Theories of Art more closel y a work o f art approache s completio n an d finish, th e farthe r removed i t i s fro m it s original , persona l inception . I f w e plac e thi s notion i n a broade r context , w e ca n sa y tha t th e artis t i s situate d i n opposition t o societ y an d culture . Th e theor y o f enthusiasm , o f th e artist's inspiration , a theor y tha t wa s t o becom e s o influentia l i n th e course o f th e nineteent h century , seeme d t o furthe r suppor t th e mutua l contradiction o f artis t an d socia l culture . Enthusias m an d inspiration , everybody believed , ar e th e gift s o f th e individua l artis t only . The y are , then, bes t expresse d i n th e sketch , th e mos t persona l o f ar t forms . "Passion," t o quot e Didero t onc e more , "make s onl y sketches. " An d somewhere els e h e asks : "Ho w i s i t tha t a youn g pupi l wh o coul d no t even mak e a mediocr e pictur e ca n das h of f a magnificen t sketch? " An d his answe r is : "Becaus e th e sketc h i s a wor k o f fire an d genius , whil e the pictur e i s a produc t o f labor , lon g an d patien t stud y an d consum mate experienc e o f art." 9 8 A thir d reaso n ca n b e give n fo r th e ne w appreciatio n o f th e sketch . In it s attemp t t o catc h th e evanescent , seemingl y self-generate d realit y of th e imagination , th e sketc h seeme d t o som e artist s an d critic s t o manifest, mor e distinctl y tha n an y othe r ar t form , creativ e spontaneity . Already b y th e mid-eighteent h century , th e vivacity o f th e sketc h wa s seen a s a definit e an d identifiabl e aestheti c value . "Wh y doe s a fine sketch giv e u s mor e pleasur e tha n a fine picture? " Didero t asked . Hi s answer was : "Becaus e w e find i n i t [th e sketch ] mor e lif e an d fewe r details. I n proportio n a s th e artis t introduce s mor e detai l th e vivacit y disappears." 99 Wha t Didero t call s "detail " i s the rational , balanced , an d precise recor d o f reality ; "life, " o n th e othe r hand , i s tha t mysterious , self-generating movemen t tha t w e cal l "spontaneity. " I n th e revisio n o f aesthetic concept s an d judgment s tha t bega n wit h th e Enlightenment , the artist' s spontaneit y a s such , a s see n i n hi s brus h strok e an d hand writing, cam e t o b e considere d a centra l aestheti c value . Moreover , artistic spontaneit y wa s see n a s a visibl e embodimen t o f huma n spon taneity an d creativ e powe r i n general . Th e sketch , then , i n som e mysterious fashio n evoke d a fundamenta l trai t i n huma n nature . T o eighteenth-century intellectuals , i t ha s convincingl y bee n said , th e sketc h showed "wha t wa s nascent , instinctua l and , therefore , fundamenta l t o all creatures." 100 3*8

The Artist In th e earl y nineteent h centur y al l th e approache s t o th e sketc h tha t we hav e outline d wer e vigorousl y alive . Delacroix , i t goe s withou t saying, absorbe d al l o f them . Fe w artist s o f hi s tim e equalle d hi m i n perceiving th e aestheti c an d expressiv e value s o f th e sketch , an d i t i s not surprisin g tha t al l thes e idea s ar e reflected , i n on e wa y o r another , in hi s writings . I n th e grea t debat e betwee n th e sketc h an d th e finished painting, however , hi s positio n wa s no t a n extrem e one ; i t was , on e could say , rathe r "moderate. " I n hi s paintings , h e neve r "abandone d himself t o th e absolut e freedo m o f th e sketch." 101 I n hi s theoretica l reflections, hi s positio n wa s similar . H e trie d t o combin e bot h attitudes . We shal l disregar d al l thos e observation s i n whic h Delacroi x simpl y reflects th e view s an d trend s o f though t o n th e sketc h prevailin g i n hi s time. I shoul d lik e t o emphasiz e onl y on e view , on e no t foun d a s ofte n as th e others . I mea n th e belie f tha t th e sketc h incite s th e imaginatio n of th e spectator . In th e not e o f Octobe r 26 , 18^3 , a not e I have alread y mentioned mor e tha n once , Delacroi x explicitl y deplore s a hig h degre e of finish i n a painting . Bu t wh y i s finish bad ? Th e reaso n i s tha t i t suppresses th e qualitie s tha t stimulat e th e spectator' s imagination . Face d with a meticulousl y finished, highl y polishe d painting , th e spectator' s imagination i s lef t helples s an d confined . Th e spectator' s imagination , Delacroix writes , "enjoy s uncertaint y an d easil y spreads , an d embrace s vast object s o n th e basi s o f scant y suggestions." 102 Reviewing thes e observations , on e notes , first, th e grea t attentio n devoted t o th e spectato r an d t o hi s reactions . Second , i t i s specificall y the spectator' s imaginatio n tha t i s considere d o f primar y importance . The valu e o f th e sketc h consist s precisel y i n this , tha t i t activate s th e spectator's fantasy . Th e beholder , i t follows , i s no t a passiv e receiver , more o r les s affecte d b y wha t h e sees ; h e i s understoo d a s actin g an d contributing hi s ow n fantas y i n experiencin g a wor k o f art . Wit h th e advantage o f hindsight , w e ca n sa y tha t her e th e vie w o f th e spectato r as th e artist' s partne r begin s t o emerge . Color. One additiona l aspec t o f Delacroix' s elaborat e an d many-side d theory o f art , hi s view s o n color , mus t stil l b e briefl y treated . Onc e again, th e subjec t i s no t new . Th e positio n o f colo r withi n th e syste m of painting , an d particularl y it s juxtapositio n wit h line , i s a time 3£9

Modern Theories of Art honored them e i n reflection s o n painting . I n th e first volum e o f thi s book, I had , indeed , t o dea l repeatedl y wit h th e contes t betwee n colo r and line . W e hav e see n ho w i t appeare d i n th e lat e centurie s o f Antiquity, ho w i t wa s suggeste d i n th e late r Middl e Ages , ho w i t acquired grea t significanc e i n th e lat e Renaissance , an d ho w i t domi nated th e passionat e debate s carrie d o n i n th e Frenc h Academ y o f th e seventeenth century. 103 I n th e first hal f o f th e nineteent h century , th e controversy concernin g th e specifi c value s o f colo r an d lin e wa s force fully revived . A neoclassica l tren d champione d th e supposedl y rational , spiritual, an d asceti c characte r o f line . Anothe r group , mor e difficul t t o label unde r a singl e term , extolle d th e sensuous , evocative , an d life giving powe r o f color . Delacroix , i t i s wel l known , belonge d t o thi s second group . H e was , i t ha s bee n said , a "propagandis t fo r color. " When w e tr y t o se e hi s view s o n thi s subjec t i n a broade r context , i t turns ou t tha t hi s suppor t fo r colo r i s closel y relate d t o wha t imagina tion mean t i n hi s thought , an d t o ho w h e sa w th e spectator' s rol e i n experiencing a work o f art . The mos t conspicuou s featur e o f color , Delacroi x believes , i s tha t i t endows th e paintin g wit h th e "appearanc e o f life. " Earl y i n 18^ 2 h e noted i n hi s Journal: "Painters wh o ar e no t colorist s produc e illumina tion an d no t painting . . . . Colo r gives th e appearanc e o f life." 104 Thi s latter phras e i s a figure o f speec h know n fro m Antiquit y t o Diderot . I n ancient literatur e i t occur s i n Plutarch , wh o i n th e secon d centur y A.D . claimed tha t "colo r i s mor e stimulatin g tha n lin e drawin g becaus e i t i s life-like an d create s a n illusion." 105 W e shal l no t o f cours e attemp t t o trace th e eventfu l histor y o f thes e metaphors . Amon g moder n writer s I shall mentio n onl y on e o f Delacroix' s mos t revere d authors , Diderot . I n the Essay on Painting, Didero t sai d tha t "I t i s drawin g tha t give s for m t o the being s [figures] , i t i s colo r tha t give s the m life . Her e i s th e divin e breath tha t animate s them." 1 0 6 Now, lifelikeness , appearanc e o f life , animatin g breath—ar e no t al l these descriptiv e phrase s i n fac t ver y clos e t o th e metaphor s use d t o characterize imagination ? Tha t ou r artis t use d th e sam e formula e fo r describing th e characte r an d effec t o f bot h colo r an d imaginatio n probably indicate s a lin k betwee n th e two . Wha t colo r provides—thi s is wha t Delacroi x seem s t o hav e thought—i s on e aspec t o f wha t 360

The Artist imagination give s o n a comprehensiv e scale . N o wonder , then , tha t h e ascribes t o colo r a n effec t simila r t o tha t characteristi c o f th e sketch : i t stimulates th e beholder' s fantasy . I n his preparation s fo r th e Dictionnaire that neve r cam e t o fruition , h e wrote : "Color : o f it s superiorit y o r o f its exquisiteness , i f yo u wish , wit h regar d t o it s effec t o n th e imagina tion." 107 Ther e i s a bond , then , betwee n colo r an d th e spectator' s imagination. Here Delacroi x goe s beyon d wha t wa s accepte d i n th e lon g histor y of reflectio n o n colo r i n painting . Tha t colo r appeal s t o th e emotions , whereas lin e addresse s itsel f t o th e rationa l facultie s o f th e mind , wa s a belief hel d i n man y periods . Wha t i s characteristi c o f th e ne w age , an d particularly of Delacroix, i s the explicit assumptio n tha t color stimulate s specifically th e spectator' s imagination . Eve n fo r thi s connectio n on e could find a precedent i n history. A t the end of the seventeenth century , Dupuy d e Grez , th e Frenc h write r o n art , declare d tha t "A s desig n strikes reason , s o colo r strike s imagination." 108 Suc h a n isolate d state ment remaine d withou t furthe r impact , however . I t wa s onl y i n th e middle o f th e nineteent h centur y tha t th e underlyin g assumption s become explicit . Delacroix , i t ca n b e sai d withou t muc h hesitation , opens u p a ne w stag e i n moder n colo r theor y b y bringin g hue s int o connection wit h th e spectator' s imagination . Delacroix's ar t theory , a s als o hi s art , ha s ofte n bee n describe d a s "Romantic," an d ther e i s indee d littl e doub t tha t h e wa s influence d b y various trend s i n Romanticism . H e dre w fro m man y intellectua l an d aesthetic traditions , th e mos t prominen t amon g the m bein g Diderot , who represente d fo r hi m th e Enlightenment , an d the writer s an d artists of nineteenth-centur y Germany . H e admire d th e wor k o f Madam e d e Stael, th e influentia l Frenc h writer who, around the tur n of the century , had suc h clos e connection s wit h th e poet s an d painter s o f Germa n Romanticism. He r book o n Germany 109 playe d an important par t in the development o f hi s ow n ideas . Bu t whil e th e influenc e o f literar y Romanticism o n Delacroi x i s certain , w e mus t as k ourselve s whethe r we ca n labe l hi m a "Romantic. " Perhap s mor e tha n an y othe r nine teenth-century painte r who wa s closely relate d t o Romanticism , Delacroi x goes beyon d th e intellectua l limit s o f tha t movement , an d mark s th e transition t o wha t w e ar e in th e habi t o f callin g "th e modern world. " 361

Modern Theories of Art 3. CHARLE S BAUDELAIR E ( 1 8 2 I - I 8 6 7 )

His Writings on Art. "Glorifyin g th e cul t o f image s (m y great , m y unique , my primar y passion)"—thi s i s ho w Baudelair e describe d hi s lifelon g attitude t o th e visua l arts . Himsel f on e o f th e grea t poet s o f Frenc h literature, an d on e o f th e foremos t literar y critic s o f hi s century , throughout hi s lif e h e di d indee d glorif y paintin g an d mak e image s th e objects o f cul t an d veneration . I n 184^ , as a young ma n o f twenty-four , he mad e hi s literar y debu t wit h a piec e o n painting , th e revie w o f th e Salon o f tha t year . H e continue d t o writ e o n paintin g an d sculptur e almost t o th e en d o f hi s life . Bu t ther e i s obviously mor e t o hi s writing s on paintin g an d sculptur e tha n a continue d dedicatio n an d a n unhesi tating veneratio n o f th e art s o f th e eye . Baudelair e ha d a gospe l t o preach abou t th e natur e o f art , an d i t i s a messag e o f historica l significance. Ever y studen t tryin g t o outlin e a histor y o f moder n re flection o n ar t mus t admi t tha t wit h Baudelair e a ne w ag e begins . Ar e we, then , entitle d t o trea t hi m a s par t o f tha t stag e i n ar t theor y tha t we hav e trie d t o describ e i n th e presen t volume ? Shoul d a presenta tion o f theoretica l reflectio n o n art , a s i t emerge d i n th e generatio n o f Winckelmann, no t b e brough t t o a conclusion befor e th e appearanc e o f Baudelaire? Whil e ther e i s little doub t tha t Baudelair e mark s th e begin ning o f a ne w stag e o f critica l thought , however , h e als o mark s th e en d of a lon g an d ric h developmen t i n th e theor y o f art . On e o f ou r aim s i n this final sectio n will , indeed , b e t o sho w wha t h e dre w fro m th e pas t and wha t ar e th e majo r link s tha t connec t hi m wit h th e grea t heritag e of though t o n images . Moreover , man y development s i n th e theor y o f art fro m Winckelman n t o th e middl e o f th e nineteent h centur y ca n b e seen i n a ne w ligh t i f the y ar e looke d a t fro m th e vantag e poin t o f Baudelaire. To attemp t a n analysi s o f Baudelair e i n th e contex t o f ar t theor y i s to fac e a familia r difficulty . Baudelair e neve r produce d a systemati c treatise o n art . Hi s writing s pertinen t t o ou r subjec t consis t o f occa sional pieces , eithe r critica l review s o f exhibition s (th e s o calle d "Sa lons") o r discussion s o f individua l artist s (Guys , Delacroix , som e cari caturists), an d wer e usuall y compose d fo r specifi c events . Som e o f th e articles h e wrot e o n poet s an d composer s (suc h a s Edga r Alla n Po e an d 362

The Artist Richard Wagner ) ma y also contribut e t o our understanding o f his views on paintin g an d sculpture . O n th e whole , then , hi s reflection s o n painting ar e intimately relate d t o specia l event s o r figures i n th e art lif e of his time , and it does no t at first see m tha t the y wil l be able t o conve y an overvie w o f hi s ar t theor y a s a whole . In spit e o f thes e limitations , however, i t ha s alway s bee n obviou s tha t Baudelair e ha s a "doctrine, " or a messag e t o deliver , tha t ca n b e detache d fro m an y particula r occasion o r figure an d presente d accordin g t o certai n principles . Stu dents who , in on e wa y or another , hav e touche d o n hi s views , i n fact , have neve r doubte d tha t ther e i s a Baudelair e "doctrine, " an d tha t i t can b e presente d i n systemati c fashion . Her e I shall first tr y t o present , in brie f outline , th e central component s o f this doctrine , and afterward s attempt t o she d som e ligh t o n it s links t o pas t development s a s well a s on it s ramifications fo r th e future . Principles: Autonomy, Imagination, "Correspondences." Wha t i s th e purpos e of art ? This i s the subjec t o f the first principl e i n Baudelaire' s theor y o f art. Hi s centra l tene t i s tha t ar t i s autonomous . Thi s claim , vali d fo r both literatur e an d the visual arts , forms th e very basi s of his aesthetics. Baudelaire i s perhap s th e mos t importan t preache r o f th e autonom y o f art, an d he is known fo r thi s belie f mor e tha n fo r an y other . Not tha t h e alway s hel d thi s view ; h e arrive d a t i t afte r som e sou l searching; I n his youth h e wrote contemptuousl y o f the "pueril e Utopi a of th e schoo l o f art for art, whic h b y excludin g morals , an d ofte n eve n passion, wa s necessaril y sterile." 110 A t thi s earl y stag e o f thi s though t he accepte d opinion s an d belief s that , a s w e hav e seen , enjoye d wid e approval a t th e time , an d wer e firmly roote d i n a lon g histor y o f th e philosophy o f art . Eve n i n th e earl y o r mid-nineteent h century , a s w e have jus t noted , mos t trend s o f though t assigne d t o ar t a purpos e tha t was no t ar t itself . Th e wor k o f art, we have hear d tim e an d again , aim s at movin g th e passions o f the audience, i t strive s t o teac h u s a lesson o r to improv e th e moral s o f society . Bu t Baudelair e dissociate d himsel f from thes e doctrines . H e became , a s w e hav e said , th e apostl e o f th e doctrine tha t ar t ha s its valu e i n itself . A s early a s 1846 , he condemne d philosophical poetr y a s " a fals e genre. " H e deplore d th e vie w tha t ar t should expres s idea s draw n fro m sphere s a s distan t fro m ar t a s scienc e 363

Modern Theories of Art or politics . "I s ar t useful? " h e ask s i n anothe r article , and answers : "Yes. Why? Becaus e i t i s art." 111 In a n articl e calle d "Philosophica l Art, " foun d afte r hi s deat h amon g his paper s (an d mos t likel y no t ye t i n finished form) , Baudelair e trie s t o define "pur e art. " H e doe s s o b y opposin g "pure " t o "philosophical " art. Th e openin g sentence s shoul d b e quote d in extenso. What i s pur e ar t accordin g t o th e moder n idea ? I t i s th e creatio n o f a n evocative magic , containin g a t onc e th e objec t an d th e subject , th e worl d external t o the artist an d the artist himself. What i s philosophi c ar t accordin g t o th e idea s o f Chenavar d an d th e German school ? I t i s a plasti c ar t whic h set s itsel f u p i n plac e o f books , b y which I mean as a rival t o the printing press in the teachin g of history, morals and philosophy. 112 "Philosophic art, " then , i s ar t produce d no t fo r it s ow n sak e bu t i n order t o teac h u s something , o r fo r som e othe r externa l purpose . Th e plastic arts , Baudelair e sarcasticall y remark s o n th e sam e page , wer e "t o paint th e nationa l archive s o f a people , an d it s religiou s beliefs. " "Pur e art," o n th e othe r hand , i s th e ar t tha t ha s n o externa l purpose . Th e reference t o th e spectator , i t i s wort h mentioning , i s no t denie d i n "pure" art . T o spea k abou t "evocativ e magic " i s possibl e onl y i f ther e is a spectato r o n who m thi s magi c i s t o work . Wha t i s denied , o r overcome, i s th e ga p betwee n "th e art " an d th e purpos e i n a paintin g or a poem . We canno t dea l her e wit h th e mor e distan t source s tha t ma y hav e nourished Baudelaire' s concep t o f ar t a s a n autonomou s value . Tracin g the histor y o f view s concernin g th e purpose s o f ar t ma y wel l requir e a volume o f it s own . Her e I shall onl y remar k tha t th e "ar t fo r art' s sake " movement obviousl y form s par t o f th e immediat e backgroun d o f Baudelaire's though t o n th e subjec t (though , bein g primaril y a literar y movement, i t ha s a somewhat distan t relatio n t o th e theor y o f th e visua l arts). Perhap s th e mos t direc t philosophica l sourc e i s to b e foun d i n th e Paris schoo l o f idealisti c aesthetic s tha t wa s activ e an d influentia l i n th e early decade s o f th e nineteent h century . Thi s schoo l i s probabl y bes t represented b y Victo r Cousi n (1796—1867) , philosophe r an d persuasiv e teacher. I n a lecture serie s delivere d i n 1817—181 8 but publishe d twent y 364

The Artist years late r (i n a book tha t achieve d grea t fam e an d popularity) , w e find statements suc h as: "Art is not a n instrument, i t is in itself its own end " or "Wha t i s require d i s religio n fo r religion' s sake , moralit y fo r morali ty's sake , jus t a s ar t fo r art' s sake." 113 Cousi n himsel f pointe d ou t th e theological origin s o f hi s philosophy . "W e lov e a beautifu l o r goo d object," h e said , "becaus e i t i s such , withou t prio r consideratio n whethe r this lov e ma y b e usefu l t o it s objec t o r t o ourselves . Al l th e stronge r reason that , whe n i t ascend s t o God , lov e i s a pure homag e rendere d t o his perfection ; i t i s th e natura l overflo w o f th e sou l toward s a bein g who i s infinitely lovable." 114 It i s beyon d ou r scop e t o explor e th e hidde n motive s tha t brough t about th e "ar t for art' s sake" movement. T o d o thi s might wel l amoun t to attemptin g a n analysi s o f a significan t par t o f moder n cultur e an d society i n general. Som e scholars have seen i n that movement, originall y a literary one , a n afterlife o f Romanticism . Revol t agains t th e rigi d law s of classicis m an d th e proclamatio n o f a fre e ar t liberate d fro m th e fetters o f traditiona l poetic s an d rhetori c ar e th e soi l i n whic h th e ne w attitude grew , the y say. 115 Anothe r caus e tha t ha s bee n pu t forwar d i n different form s i s o f a mor e socia l nature : i t i s th e perceptio n o f th e artist a s thoroughl y alienate d fro m hi s audience . Seein g ar t a s autono mous, tha t is , a s detache d fro m an y socia l context , i s th e resul t o f thi s alienation.116 The ton e tha t Baudelair e employ s i n speakin g o f larg e audiences woul d see m t o suppor t thi s explanation . I t i s a ton e that , i n its harshness , hostility , an d contempt , i s i n itsel f vivi d testimon y t o th e alienation o f progressiv e artist s an d o f th e critic s supportin g them , o n the on e hand , fro m th e genera l audience , o n th e other . Th e broa d public, i n Baudelaire' s words , i s characterize d b y "th e stupidit y o f th e multitude," i t suffer s fro m th e "diseas e o f imbeciles." 117 I n forme r periods also , th e publi c wa s occasionall y criticized , bu t i t i s difficul t t o conceive o f suc h large-scal e contemp t fo r th e "crowd. " So far we hav e looked a t Baudelaire's views of the purpose fo r whic h a wor k o f ar t is , o r shoul d be , produced . Bu t ho w doe s i t com e int o being? If the first topic w e hav e outline d i s concerned wit h th e plac e o f art i n culture o r society, th e latte r i s focused o n ar t itself. Baudelaire wholl y reject s th e inherite d opinion , whic h wa s almost an axiom i n the art theory of most periods , tha t a picture come s int o bein g 36*

Modern Theories of Art by representing nature . H e i n fac t constantl y attacke d th e time-honore d theory tha t ar t i s a n imitatio n o f nature . Thi s tota l rejectio n o f th e imitation theor y ha s tw o aspects . First , h e question s th e philosophica l assumptions o f th e theory . I n criticizin g th e Salo n o f 1859 , h e wrote : "In recen t year s w e hav e hear d i t sai d i n a thousan d differen t ways , 'Copy nature ; jus t cop y nature. ' . . . An d thi s doctrin e (th e enem y o f art) wa s allege d t o appl y no t onl y t o paintin g bu t t o al l th e arts . . . . " He want s t o as k thes e "doctrinaires " severa l questions . On e i s "whethe r they wer e quit e certai n o f th e existenc e o f externa l nature. " Afte r all , we ca n onl y depic t wha t w e se e an d feel , th e outsid e worl d a s i t i s reflected i n ou r minds . Non e o f us , an d mos t o f al l th e artist , ca n g o beyond ou r personal , subjectiv e experience . "Th e artist , th e tru e artist , the tru e poet , shoul d onl y pain t i n accordanc e wit h wha t h e see s an d with wha t h e feels." 118 W e shal l no t her e attemp t t o explor e th e philosophical aspect s o f Baudelaire' s statement . Whateve r on e ma y think o f hi s attitud e a s a philosophica l argument , i t i s obvious tha t h e i s here questionin g th e ver y basi s of what ha d bee n th e cred o o f art theor y throughout th e centuries , namely , tha t w e can depict nature . The othe r aspec t o f Baudelaire' s rejectio n o f th e imitatio n theory , perhaps eve n mor e importan t tha n th e philosophica l side , i s th e emo tional connotatio n th e "imitatio n o f nature " acquire s i n hi s thought , and th e ton e i n whic h h e expresse s hi s rejectio n o f thi s theory . Thu s h e speaks o f th e "sill y cul t o f nature. " Imitatin g natur e i s equate d wit h a loss o f art's self-esteem . Lookin g a t th e paintin g produce d i n hi s day , h e finds tha t "Ever y da y ar t furthe r diminishe s it s self-respec t b y bowin g down befor e externa l reality ; eac h da y th e painte r become s mor e an d more give n t o paintin g no t wha t h e dream s bu t wha t h e sees." 119 The ange r an d contemp t s o clearl y manifeste d i n hi s rejectio n o f realism, bot h i n paintin g an d i n literature , vividl y testif y t o wha t I her e wish t o poin t out . Realism , h e says , i s " a disgustin g insul t throw n int o the fac e o f al l analysts , a vagu e an d elasti c wor d whic h mean s fo r th e vulgar no t a ne w metho d o f creatio n bu t th e minut e descriptio n o f inessentials." Equall y telling , i n thi s respect , i s Baudelaire's ope n disdai n for photography . Th e ver y emergenc e o f photograph y seem s t o hi m t o follow directl y fro m th e hig h regar d fo r realis m i n art . In hi s importan t review o f th e Salo n o f 18^9 , he devote d a n articl e t o th e ne w mediu m 366

The Artist of photography . "I n matters o f paintin g an d sculpture, " he wrote , "th e present-day Cred o o f th e sophisticate d . . . i s this : ' I believ e i n Nature (a timi d an d dissiden t sec t woul d wis h t o exclud e th e mor e repellen t objects of nature, such as skeletons an d chamber-pots). . . . A revengefu l God ha s give n ea r t o th e prayer s o f thi s multitude . Daguerr e wa s hi s Messiah."120 In an original an d profoun d insight , Baudelair e declare s tha t th e tru e aim o f realis m i s th e representatio n o f a worl d fre e of , o r alie n to , human experience . Thi s ide a i s onl y casuall y stated , bu t it s significanc e is s o far-reachin g tha t w e mus t not e it . Onl y i f w e se e th e hidde n motives an d aim s o f realis m a s h e sa w the m ca n w e understan d wha t true artisti c creatio n mean t t o him . I n hi s semina l review s o f th e 18^ 9 Salon, Baudelair e contrast s th e realists , who m h e choose s t o cal l "posi tivists," wit h wha t h e call s "th e imaginists. " Th e realis t seem s t o say : " 'I wan t t o represen t thing s a s the y are , o r rathe r a s the y woul d be , supposing tha t I di d no t exist. ' I n othe r words , th e univers e withou t man. Th e other s however—th e 'imaginatives'—say , ' I want t o illumi nate thing s wit h m y mind , an d t o projec t thei r reflectio n upo n othe r minds.' " 121 Her e w e hav e reache d anothe r basi c principl e o f Baude laire's theor y o f art , hi s doctrin e o f th e imagination . I f realis m aim s t o depict a nonhuma n world , imaginatio n conjure s u p a worl d tha t i s nothing bu t human . The moder n studen t asks , first o f all , wha t i s th e specifi c plac e o f imagination, a s Baudelair e understand s it , i n th e orde r o f things . Doe s the study o f the artist' s imagination belon g in the domain of psychology, or shoul d i t rathe r b e approache d a s a kind o f metaphysica l reality ? T o Baudelaire, artisti c imaginatio n i s "th e quee n o f th e faculties, " an d h e endows it , thoug h subtl y an d ambiguously , wit h metaphysica l connota tions. I t thu s hover s betwee n th e domai n o f th e empirica l an d th e metaphysical. "Th e imaginatio n i s an almost divin e faculty, " our autho r says, whic h a t once perceive s certai n hidde n relationship s i n th e world. 122 The imaginatio n ha s th e powe r t o compensat e fo r th e deficiencie s o f nature. "Th e imaginatio n owe s [thi s power ] to it s divin e origin." 123 H e even speaks , thoug h vaguel y (s o tha t th e reade r i s no t sur e whethe r h e is to understan d th e wording a s metaphoric o r as literal), of a "universal imagination."124 367

Modern Theories of Art The distinctiv e mar k o f th e artist' s imagination , a s Baudelair e see s it , is it s productivity , it s generatin g power . I t become s th e creativ e facult y par excellence . I n hi s Salo n revie w o f 18^9 , he quote s approvingl y (an d in th e origina l English ) fro m Catherin e Crow' s The Night Side of Nature, which appeare d i n 1848 . There th e autho r distinguishes , i n th e vei n o f Coleridge an d othe r Englis h writer s o f th e earl y nineteent h century , between "fancy " an d th e highe r form s o f imagination . Th e highe r function o f imagination , Mrs . Cro w writes , u in a s much a s man i s mad e in th e likenes s o f God , bear s a distant relatio n t o tha t sublim e powe r b y which th e Creato r projects , creates , an d uphold s hi s universe." 125 Th e likeness t o Go d consist s i n th e generating , creativ e quality . I t is , i n Baudelaire's quotatio n fro m Mrs . Crow , " a constructive imagination. " How, i n Baudelaire' s view , doe s tha t creative , o r "constructive, " imagination work ? Doe s th e artist' s fantas y conjur e u p image s ou t o f nothing, tha t is , image s o f object s tha t hav e neve r existe d an d hav e nothing t o d o wit h th e impression s w e receiv e fro m th e outsid e world ? Or doe s i t rathe r combin e i n a differen t patter n th e shape s an d figures we ar e familia r wit h fro m ou r experienc e i n thi s world ? Thi s is , o f course, a n ol d question , on e tha t inevitabl y emerge d a t ever y stag e o f art theor y i n whic h th e proble m o f th e artist' s imaginatio n wa s pose d anew o r acquire d renewe d significance . Becaus e th e artist' s imaginatio n occupies suc h a centra l plac e i n Baudelaire' s theory , th e studen t o f hi s thought mus t repea t thes e ol d questions . No w Baudelaire , a s w e know , was no t a systemati c philosopher , an d on e i s no t surprise d t o find tha t on differen t occasion s h e gav e differen t answer s t o th e sam e questions ; sometimes o n th e ver y sam e pag e w e find differen t opinion s a s t o ho w the imaginatio n works . One answe r adumbrate d i n Baudelaire' s writing s i s a modern formu lation o f th e creatio ex nihilo doctrine. I n origina l metaphorica l term s h e tries t o sugges t tha t th e wor k o f ar t i s a n altogethe r ne w reality , on e that i s no t founde d o n an y precedin g concret e existence . U A goo d picture, whic h i s a faithfu l equivalen t o f th e drea m whic h ha s begotte n it, shoul d b e brough t int o bein g lik e a world." 126 T o mak e sur e tha t the concep t o f "dream " i s correctly understood , h e adds , "b y thi s wor d I d o no t mea n th e riotou s Bedlam s o f th e night , bu t rathe r th e visio n that come s fro m intens e meditation. " 368

The Artist What Baudelair e understoo d b y imaginatio n ca n als o b e see n b y exam ining hi s precis e motive s fo r rejectin g realism . I n the past , th e unselec tive, naturalisti c copyin g o f "nature " had frequently bee n censured , th e reason fo r thes e rejection s bein g tha t a n uncritica l copyin g o f wha t ca n be see n aroun d u s perpetuate s al l th e deformation s an d imperfection s of th e outsid e world . T o suc h naturalisti c depiction , al l period s hav e opposed a n idealizin g renderin g o f tha t ver y sam e reality , tha t is , a rendering tha t correct s nature' s "faults. " Thi s motivatio n ma y als o b e found i n Baudelaire' s thought . Hi s majo r reaso n fo r th e rejectio n o f realism, however, i s a different one . A precise cop y o f the outside worl d merely duplicate s wha t alread y exists . Rea l creation , on e infer s fro m this criticis m o f th e realisti c approach , i s th e projectio n o f somethin g that doe s no t ye t exist . " I conside r i t useles s an d tediou s t o represen t what exists, becaus e nothin g tha t exists satisfie s me . Natur e i s ugly , an d I prefer th e monsters o f my fancy t o what is positively trivial." 127 Thoug h the imperfections o f nature are also suggested, th e major reason is clear: the trivialit y o f wha t exists . Imagination , i t follow s b y implication , i s the creatio n o f something tha t doe s no t ye t exist . In additio n t o thi s radica l interpretatio n o f imagination , Baudelair e seems t o hav e entertaine d ye t anothe r vie w o f ho w th e artist' s fantas y works. I n thi s view , th e artist , unlik e God , doe s no t inven t concret e images an d visua l impressions ; hi s imaginatio n i s reall y nothin g bu t a rearrangement o f "ra w material " tha t h e ha s receive d fro m a n outsid e source. Wha t arise s fro m th e artist' s sou l i s th e principl e o f composi tion. Imagination , h e says , "decompose s al l creation , an d wit h th e ra w materials accumulate d an d dispose d i n accordanc e wit h rule s whos e origins one canno t find save i n the furthes t depth s of th e soul , i t create s a world, i t produce s a sensation o f newness." 128 A carefu l reade r o f Baudelaire' s writing s o n paintin g i s force d t o conclude tha t h e conceive d o f a pictur e completel y invente d b y th e artist a s th e highes t ai m a painter ca n striv e for , thoug h i t ma y wel l b e beyond huma n reach . Vaguel y h e foresee s a painting withou t a subjec t or, a t least , withou t a recognizabl e materia l subject . Alread y i n hi s reviews o f th e 184 6 Salon , h e ha d sai d tha t "th e right way t o kno w i f a picture i s melodiou s i s t o loo k a t i t fro m fa r enoug h awa y t o mak e i t impossible t o understan d it s subjec t o r t o distinguis h it s lines. I f i t i s 369

Modern Theories of Art melodious, i t alread y ha s a meanin g an d ha s alread y take n it s plac e i n your stor e o f memories." 129 H e als o claims , i n anothe r place , tha t lin e and colo r ar e "absolutel y independen t o f th e subjec t o f th e picture. " Clearly w e ar e her e face d wit h a prophe t o f abstrac t art , tha t is , a n ar t that i s totally th e produc t o f th e artist' s imagination . To creat e a wor k o f ar t tha t i s completel y draw n fro m th e artist' s imagination ma y b e a suprem e aim , ye t i t i s hard , o r eve n impossible , to achieve . I n practice , th e artis t take s mos t o f hi s material fro m nature . This, however , doe s no t compe l u s t o accep t th e doctrin e tha t ar t i s a n imitation o f nature . Baudelair e quote s hi s olde r contemporary , Heinric h Heine, wit h approval . I n reviewin g Delacroix , Hein e wrote : ' i n artisti c matters, I a m a supernaturalist . I believ e tha t th e artis t canno t find al l his form s i n nature , bu t tha t th e mos t remarkabl e ar e reveale d t o hi m in hi s soul , lik e a n innat e symbolog y o f innat e ideas , an d a t th e sam e instant." 130 W e ca n sa y wit h Welle k tha t "Baudelair e her e seem s t o agree wit h a n ultimatel y Neoplatoni c trus t i n a n inne r model , i n th e vision o f 'th e artis t wh o dominate s th e mode l a s th e Creato r dominate s His creation. ' " 1 3 1 The studen t o f Baudelaire' s theor y o f ar t i s her e face d wit h a contradiction. O n th e on e hand , ou r autho r emphasize s tim e an d agai n that tru e creatio n mean s drawin g fro m th e artist' s soul , fro m hi s imagination. O n th e other , h e doe s no t altogethe r isolat e th e painte r o r the poe t fro m th e worl d surroundin g them . O n th e contrary , i t i s th e hallmark o f th e artist , a s we remember , tha t h e i s able t o discer n hidde n relations betwee n th e differen t object s i n th e outsid e world . Ho w ar e we t o understan d thi s puzzle ? We com e the n t o anothe r centra l subjec t o f Baudelaire' s theor y o f art, hi s view s o f th e "outsid e world. " I shal l touc h o n thi s subjec t briefly, an d I shal l o f cours e d o s o onl y insofa r a s th e "world, " o r whatever els e tha t externa l realit y ma y b e called , i s th e objec t of , o r i s related to , th e artist' s imagination . W e mus t kee p i n min d howeve r tha t Baudelaire's view s concernin g th e realit y surroundin g us , eve n a s i t i s related t o art , wer e no t shape d b y aestheti c motive s alone ; othe r concerns an d belief s playe d a n importan t par t i n formin g them . Earl y i n his life , ou r autho r passe d throug h a "mystic " o r "occult " stage . Late r on, a n aspiratio n toward s mysticis m remaine d aliv e i n hi s attitude s an d 37o

The Artist thought. H e naturall y combine d thes e mysti c leaning s wit h hi s aestheti c concerns: art , a t it s highest , wa s t o b e conceive d a s a semimystica l vision an d ecstasy . Eve n i n suc h a designatio n h e ma y hav e bee n following tradition s wit h whic h h e wa s acquainted. 132 Thi s backgroun d is o f importanc e fo r a n understandin g o f th e centra l concept s h e employs whe n h e discusse s "th e world, " namely , "correspondences' * and "hieroglyphs. " These concept s hav e a lon g histor y i n Europea n though t an d letters , particularly i n th e occul t tradition s o f Wester n culture . W e canno t o f course g o int o th e earl y phase s o f idea s abou t analogies , correspon dences, an d hieroglyphs ; fo r ou r purpos e i t wil l b e sufficien t t o recal l that thes e notion s playe d a significant par t i n eighteenth - an d nine teenth-century occultis m an d i n philosophie s wit h affinitie s t o th e occult. Th e eighteenth-centur y Swedis h scientis t an d mysti c Emanue l Swedenborg (1688—1772 ) is of particular significanc e i n our context . Hi s large an d proli x opu s i s dominate d b y a certai n conceptua l mode l tha t is perhap s bes t an d mos t concisel y state d i n th e titl e o f a shor t treatis e (not commo n i n th e wor k o f a n autho r whos e majo r wor k extend s ove r twelve might y tomes) , which , freel y translated , woul d rea d somethin g like "Hieroglyphi c Ke y t o th e Natura l an d Spiritua l Secret s b y Wa y o f Representations an d Correspondences. " I t was published posthumously , in 1784 , i n London . Th e centra l propositio n o f thi s essa y i s tha t throughout th e univers e a correspondenc e prevail s betwee n thing s spiritual an d natural , tha t thu s thing s occupyin g a lowe r ran k i n th e order o f thing s reflec t thos e belongin g t o a highe r order. 133 Thi s theor y of correspondences , i t nee d hardl y b e stressed , form s th e cor e o f th e Neoplatonic doctrin e o f th e image , a doctrin e tha t ha d man y versions . Swedenborg articulate s th e mos t extrem e an d openl y mystica l versio n of th e doctrine , bu t eve n i n thi s extrem e for m th e theor y o f reflection s and correspondence s enjoye d a lon g histor y an d a grea t dea l o f influ ence. Jako b Boehme , whos e influenc e o n earl y Romanti c though t o n painting ha s bee n mentione d i n a previou s chapter , presente d i t unde r the formulatio n o f signatura rerum. Swedenborg conceive d "correspon dences" a s a basi c for m o f knowin g th e world . In ever y singl e objec t a secret i s hidden . Ha d w e th e powe r t o unriddl e thes e secrets , eve n th e stones woul d preac h th e gospe l o f God . 37'

Modern Theories of Art Swedenborg erecte d a n edific e o f cosmi c histor y ( a strang e concoc tion o f differen t sources ) an d i n thi s structur e h e gav e hieroglyph s a n important place , a s th e visua l formulatio n communicatin g th e corre spondences. Hieroglyph s wer e suppose d t o hav e originate d a t a n earl y stage o f worl d history , a stag e i n whic h mythica l though t prevailed . Their essenc e i s that the y indicat e th e spiritual , celestia l meanin g hidde n in materia l object s an d thei r images . Th e Egyptian s kne w th e correc t reading o f th e signs ; they stil l ha d th e key . Bu t i n th e age s followin g th e Egyptian kingdom , tha t sapientia veterum was lost . "T o th e Ancients/ ' Swedenborg confidentl y claims , "th e foremos t knowledg e wa s tha t of correspondences , bu t toda y i t [thi s knowledge ] i s lost " (E . Ben z Swedenborg [Munich , 1948] , p. 411). Baudelaire himsel f mention s Swedenbor g a s one o f hi s sources ; othe r writers h e adduce s (suc h a s Lavater ) wer e als o influence d b y Sweden borg's thought . Thi s doe s no t mean , o f course , tha t Baudelair e wa s a faithful followe r o f Swedenborg' s spiritualism . W e d o no t hav e t o rea d him a s a n actua l mysti c t o recogniz e tha t h e use d th e mystica l theor y o f correspondences an d transforme d i t int o a n origina l par t o f hi s reflec tions o n th e ar t o f painting . Hi s cree d wa s ultimatel y aesthetic , an d th e theory o f correspondence s i s adopte d no t a s i t stand s bu t a s i t suite d the contex t o f th e artis t an d hi s work . We arriv e a t tha t trut h tha t everythin g i s hieroglyphic , an d w e kno w tha t the symbol s are only relativel y obscur e accordin g t o th e purity, th e good will, and the inborn clearsightedness of souls. Now what is a poet if not a translator, a decipherer? In excellent poet s there is not a single metaphor, comparison , or epithet whic h coul d no t b e a mathematically exac t adaptatio n t o th e presen t circumstance, becaus e thes e comparisons , metaphors , an d epithet s ar e draw n from th e inexhaustibl e fun d of universal analogy. 134 That Baudelair e di d no t hav e a litera l readin g o f th e doctrin e o f correspondences, tha t i n hi s though t thi s theor y i s no t a piec e o f Swedenborgian cosmology , bu t i s rather see n fro m a n aestheti c poin t o f view, an d thu s ha s a metaphorica l character , i s obviou s fro m th e wa y he employ s th e ter m correspondences. Hi s articl e o n Theophil e Gautier , poet an d criti c (1811-18 7 2), provide s a goo d exampl e o f hi s usag e o f the term . Gautier , w e rea d here , ha s "a n immens e inbor n intelligenc e 372

The Artist of universa l correspondenc e an d symbolism , th e repertor y o f al l meta phor." 1 3 5 Th e artist , h e say s elsewhere , plays o n "th e immens e key board o f correspondences." 136 An d i n stil l anothe r plac e h e say s tha t "the entir e visibl e univers e appear s a s bu t a storehous e o f image s an d signs t o whic h th e imaginatio n wil l giv e a relativ e plac e an d value ; i t i s a sor t o f pasturag e whic h th e imaginatio n mus t diges t an d trans form." 137 Now w e ca n com e bac k t o th e startin g poin t o f thi s section . W e asked ho w Baudelair e coul d clai m tha t th e pictur e shoul d follo w fro m the imaginatio n an d stil l represen t a landscap e o r a portrait , a genr e scene o r a stil l life . Ho w ca n th e paintin g b e altogethe r huma n an d stil l represent a piece o f outsid e nature ? A partial answe r a t leas t i s given b y making th e doctrin e o f hidde n analogie s th e cornerston e o f a theor y o f art. B y depictin g th e worl d a s a result , a t leas t i n part , o f imaginatio n and introspection , th e artis t overcome s th e gul f betwee n subjec t an d object, ma n an d nature . Thi s doctrin e als o explain s huma n empath y with inanimat e nature . Th e artis t humanize s "no t onl y th e for m o f a being externa l t o man , vegetable , o r mineral , bu t als o it s physiognomy , its look , it s sadness , it s tenderness , it s boundin g joy , it s repulsiv e hate , its enchantment , o r it s horror : i n othe r words , al l tha t i s huma n i n anything whatsoever , an d als o al l tha t i s divine, sacred , o r diabolic." 138 The Process of Creation. Th e grea t significanc e Baudelair e accord s t o th e artist's imaginatio n togethe r wit h hi s belie f i n correspondences mak e th e process i n whic h th e painte r actuall y produce s th e pictur e a kin d o f testing ground , wher e thes e agent s ca n perhap s actuall y b e observe d i n action. Th e studen t therefor e naturall y ask s ho w ou r poet-criti c saw , and understood , th e proces s o f producin g a wor k o f art . Attemptin g t o answer thi s question , on e soo n discover s ho w fa r Baudelair e deviate d from ol d an d establishe d tradition s (som e o f whic h h e embrace d i n other respects) . Bu t on e als o learns tha t i n man y regard s h e differ s fro m what i s no w commonplac e wisdom . A lat e twentieth-centur y reade r would ofte n no t conside r hi m "modern. " We mus t begi n wit h Baudelaire' s profoun d distrus t o f inspiratio n a s the only , o r eve n major , sourc e o f th e artist' s work . In th e cours e o f years h e cam e bac k t o thi s attitude , expressin g tim e an d agai n hi s 373

Modern Theories of Art doubts o f inspiration' s power . I n thi s context , w e shoul d not e th e emphasis h e place s o n th e nee d for , an d valu e of, skill . To youn g writer s he insiste d tha t "dail y wor k serve s inspiration, " an d h e ridicule d th e view tha t inspiratio n ca n replac e othe r requirements . H e eve n attack s the idol o f Romanticism , th e genius . "Yout h conclude s tha t i t nee d no t submit t o an y exercise . I t doe s no t kno w tha t a man o f genius . . . must, like an y apprentice d acrobat , ris k hi s bone s a thousan d time s i n privat e before h e walk s th e rop e i n public ; that inspiration , i n short , i s only th e reward o f dail y exercise." 139 Nothin g coul d b e mor e remove d fro m hi s mind tha n th e Romanti c imag e o f th e artist , a s expressed , say , b y a Wackenroder, a n artis t wh o shape s hi s wor k a s i n a trance , fired b y th e appearance i n a dream . Baudelaire, i t goe s withou t saying , doe s no t spea k persuasivel y i n favor o f skil l an d techniqu e i n orde r t o enhanc e th e virtue s a bourgeoi s society woul d embrace ; hi s appreciatio n o f disciplined , rationa l proce dures an d o f well-established know-ho w follow s fro m hi s understandin g of wha t th e creativ e proces s actuall y is . A famou s sentenc e i n hi s 186 3 article o n Delacroi x (writte n immediatel y afte r th e painter' s death ) deserves close r attentio n i n th e presen t context . "Delacroix, " w e rea d here, "wa s passionatel y i n lov e wit h passion , an d coldl y determine d t o seek th e mean s o f expressin g i t i n th e mos t visibl e way." 140 Ther e is , he says , summin g u p thi s polarity , " a dualit y o f nature " i n th e artist . Whatever thi s statemen t ma y actuall y tel l u s abou t Delacroix , i t surel y reveals somethin g essentia l abou t Baudelaire' s perceptio n o f th e basi c conditions i n whic h th e artis t ha s t o wor k an d i n whic h h e produce s his work . I t als o indicate s som e o f hi s view s concernin g th e creativ e process itself . The structura l "dualit y o f [th e artist's ] nature " i s reflecte d i n th e creative process . Her e i t become s a doubl e attitud e o f th e painte r o r poet t o hi s subject . O n th e on e hand , th e artis t identifie s wit h wha t h e represents (th e par t o f "passion") ; o n th e other , h e maintain s a n emotional distanc e fro m hi s subjec t (th e par t o f "col d determination") . Once again , Baudelair e nowher e systematicall y present s hi s view s abou t the relation s betwee n thes e tw o poles . Yet since th e matte r i s of obviou s and crucia l importanc e fo r th e theor y o f ar t an d th e artist , w e mus t 374

The Artist deal wit h it , thoug h muc h wil l hav e t o b e inferre d rathe r tha n directl y quoted. The carefu l reade r canno t hel p feelin g tha t Baudelair e stresse s th e part o f "col d determination " fa r mor e tha n th e par t o f "passion. " Imagination, w e read , i s a mos t preciou s faculty , bu t "thi s facult y remained impoten t an d steril e i f i t i s no t serve d b y a resourcefu l skill. . . ." Ml Now , th e notio n o f skill, we shoul d kee p i n mind, connote s not onl y the manual dexterit y an d technica l abilit y necessary t o translat e the vision s see n wit h one' s inne r ey e int o actua l painting s tha t ca n b e seen b y everyone ; "skill " also mark s a n attitud e o f th e artis t t o wha t h e renders. I t i s the attitud e o f emotional distanc e an d restraint . Baudelair e does no t pictur e th e artis t a s "possessed " b y hi s vision , t o us e a neo romantic formula ; o n th e contrary , h e dominate s it . Th e grea t artist , our poe t seem s t o hav e believed , feel s n o inne r compulsio n t o pain t only on e kin d o f them e o r t o depic t hi s subject s i n onl y on e specifi c manner. O n th e contrary : Baudelair e praise s Delacroi x becaus e h e "loved an d ha d th e abilit y t o pain t everything, an d kne w als o ho w t o appreciate ever y kin d o f talent." 142 Baudelaire's emphasi s o n wha t w e hav e calle d th e attitud e o f distanc e can b e inferre d fro m stil l anothe r reflection . Fo r centuries , o r eve n longer, writer s o n ar t kep t askin g i f the painte r mus t himsel f experienc e the emotion s h e expresse s i n hi s work . Th e ol d Horatia n maxi m tha t haunted ar t theor y fo r age s claime d tha t i t i s th e artist' s emotiona l identification wit h wha t h e represent s wha t account s fo r th e effec t o f his wor k o n th e audience : Si vis mi fere, dolendum est primum ipsi tihi (If you wis h m e t o weep , yo u mus t first expres s suffering yourself). 143 I t was thi s maxi m tha t i n Romanticis m le d t o th e concep t o f th e "sincer e artist." Now, i n hi s writing s o n art , i t ma y b e wort h noting , Baudelair e nowhere refer s t o thi s famou s Horatia n statement , thoug h h e ofte n speaks o f Horace' s poetics . Moreover , i t woul d ofte n see m tha t h e see s the artist' s abilit y t o hid e hi s persona l feeling s an d completel y retrea t behind wha t h e represent s a s a supreme achievement . "Th e intoxicatio n of ar t hide s th e terro r o f th e abyss : fo r geniu s ca n pla y comed y o n th e edge o f th e tomb. " Welle k correctl y sum s u p thi s attitud e b y sayin g 375

Modern Theories of Art that "th e clow n condemne d t o deat h neve r show s a trac e o f hi s imminent fat e i n th e super b performanc e o f hi s act." 144 Th e creativ e process i s on e i n whic h technique , skill , an d disciplin e pla y a crucia l part. Baudelaire's analysi s o f th e creativ e proces s ma y als o explai n hi s harsh criticis m o f a persona l artisti c emotionalism . H e i s repelle d b y this "egotistic " attitud e o f th e artist . I n hi s criticism , a s ofte n happens , his sarcasti c languag e know s littl e restraint . "Th e ape s o f sentimen t are , in general, ba d artists" : thi s i s a typica l formulation . "Th e cr y o f feelin g is always absurd, " i s another. An d speakin g o f the "poetr y o f the heart, " that attitud e i n ar t tha t ascribe s infallibilit y t o truthfu l passion , h e simply say s tha t i t i s a n aberratio n i n aesthetics. 145 Doe s al l thi s mea n that h e conceive d th e proces s o f shapin g a wor k o f ar t a s som e kin d o f computation? Obviousl y thi s i s no t th e case . H e know s o f th e artist' s intoxication, bu t i t i s a n intoxicatio n wit h ar t rathe r tha n wit h som e particular emotion . Ultimatel y i t i s th e excitemen t wit h art , no t wit h any particula r passion , tha t th e painte r an d th e poe t shoul d transmi t t o the audience . Aesthetic of the Ugly. Th e ne w vie w o f art a s existing i n it s ow n right , an d the conceptio n o f intoxicatio n wit h ar t a s suc h rathe r tha n wit h a specific passio n o r emotion , enlarged—o r eve n transformed—th e do main o f theoretica l reflection . Thes e notion s wer e closel y linke d wit h one o f th e mos t origina l departure s i n aestheti c thought , a departur e typical o f th e moder n ag e tha t ha s profoundl y influence d bot h th e theory an d th e practic e o f th e visua l arts . I n Kar l Rosenkranz' s famou s formulation, t o b e discusse d i n th e presen t section , thi s departur e ma y be calle d th e "aesthetic s o f th e ugly. " I n th e proces s tha t brough t abou t that ne w attitud e Baudelair e playe d a crucial part . The broa d contex t i n whic h Baudelair e treat s th e them e i s significan t for us ; i t ma y bot h indicat e it s historica l origi n an d suppor t hi s argu ment. I n 1863 , Baudelair e publishe d hi s lon g essa y "Th e Painte r o f Modern Life, " perhap s th e mos t programmati c statemen t amon g al l hi s writings o n painting . On e o f th e shor t chapter s int o whic h thi s essa y i s divided i s calle d "I n Prais e o f Makeup." 146 Wha t Baudelair e wishe s t o state i n thi s essay , writte n lat e i n hi s life , follow s fro m th e genera l idea s 376

The Artist we hav e s o fa r referre d to . Th e sectio n h e call s "I n Prais e o f Makeup " is, i n fact , a pointed , perhap s somewha t exaggerated , summar y o f hi s views o n art . I t is a eulog y o f th e artificial , an d a n attemp t t o establis h the superiorit y o f th e contrive d ove r th e natural , o f th e product s o f human skil l an d inventivenes s ove r th e result s o f nature . In th e eight eenth century , Baudelair e remind s hi s readers , "Natur e wa s take n a s ground, sourc e an d typ e o f al l possibl e Goo d an d Beauty." 147 Bein g natural wa s tantamoun t t o bein g goo d an d beautifu l (an d lookin g natural, w e ma y add , stil l ha s th e sam e rin g i n th e languag e o f present day advertising) . Natur e wa s th e nor m i n ethic s a s wel l a s i n art . Thi s view, Baudelair e i s convinced , i s profoundl y erroneous . H e list s th e different kind s o f violenc e t o whic h natur e lead s us . Murder , parricide , and cannibalis m ar e "natural. " Th e worshi p o f natur e an d th e natura l he call s " a blindness. " Th e eighteenth-centur y negatio n o f origina l sin , Baudelaire specificall y point s out , ha d n o mea n par t i n thi s "blindness, " that is , in th e adoratio n an d idealizatio n o f nature . It ha s bee n pointe d ou t tha t Baudelair e ma y hav e bee n influence d here b y Josep h d e Maistr e (17^4-1821) , a logicia n an d write r who , more tha n a generatio n earlier , ha d attacke d th e Enlightenmen t vener ation o f natur e o n theologica l grounds . How , h e ask s rhetorically , ca n one blin d onesel f t o th e exten t o f lookin g i n natur e fo r cause s whe n nature itsel f i s only a product? 148 Coming bac k t o Baudelaire' s 186 3 essay , w e ca n se e ho w h e main tains, an d trie s t o carr y through , th e superiorit y o f th e artificia l ove r the natural . Makeup , h e declares , shoul d no t ai m a t makin g th e woma n who applie s i t loo k natural : "fac e paintin g shoul d no t b e use d wit h th e vulgar, unavowabl e objec t o f imitatin g fai r Natur e an d o f enterin g int o a competitio n wit h youth." 1 4 9 Her e h e add s th e importan t sentence : "Who woul d dar e t o assig n t o ar t th e steril e functio n o f imitatin g Nature?" The beaut y o f artific e i s completely divorce d fro m nature . That divorc e bring s u p a ne w question : i f th e beaut y o f ar t i s s o completely independen t o f natur e tha t i t ca n b e applie d t o everything , would i t no t follo w tha t i t ca n als o b e applie d t o wha t i n natur e i s ugly , deformed, an d repulsive ? W e cannot , s o i t seems , avoi d th e paradoxica l notion o f th e beaut y o f th e ugly . Th e questio n i s no t altogethe r new . Beneath th e surface , a s i t were , i t existed , an d wa s felt , wheneve r 377

Modern Theories of Art thinkers wh o believe d tha t ar t i s an embodimen t o f beaut y reflecte d o n its relationshi p wit h nature . On e recall s Bernar d o f Clairvaux' s famou s description o f som e Romanesqu e imager y a s "deforme d beauty , beauti ful deformation," 150 compose d i n a perio d tha t i s seemingl y a s remot e as possibl e fro m ou r problem . I t was , however , onl y whe n ar t wa s explicitly conceive d a s autonomous—tha t is , i n th e mid-nineteent h century—that th e notio n o f a n "aesthetic s o f th e ugly " coul d becom e fully manifest . I t i s surel y no t a matte r o f chanc e tha t Baudelaire , th e advocate o f a n autonomou s art , playe d suc h a prominen t rol e i n articulating th e problem . In literar y theory , th e moder n concer n wit h th e ugl y an d it s connec tion wit h th e beautifu l di d no t emerg e wit h Baudelair e o r Rosenkranz . As Han s Rober t Jaus s ha s show n i n a n interestin g essay, 151 i t originate d with Victo r Hugo . I n 1827 , th e poe t preface d hi s play Cromwell wit h a lengthy theoretica l discussio n i n whic h h e presente d a n explanatio n o f why th e ugl y shoul d b e par t o f th e subjec t matte r o f art. 152 H e als o suggested a conceptio n o f th e ugl y tha t differe d fro m thos e give n a t previous stage s o f reflection . Th e classica l traditio n too k i t a s axiomati c that i t i s th e ai m o f ar t t o manifes t beauty . Fo r th e ugly , then , ther e i s no roo m i n art . Th e ugl y i s nothin g bu t th e obvers e o f beauty ; i t i s th e absence o f beaut y tha t make s somethin g ugly . Kar l Rosenkran z i n hi s Aesthetik des Hasslichen (Aesthetic s o f th e Ugly ) pu t i t a s succinctl y a s hi s philosophical languag e woul d allow : "Th e beautifu l i s th e positiv e presupposition o f th e ugly . Wer e ther e n o beautiful , n o ugl y woul d exist; i t [th e ugly ] exists onl y a s it s [the beautiful's ] negation." 153 This concep t o f th e ugl y wa s clearl y no t sufficien t fo r th e theoretica l reflections o f a n ag e that , lik e th e nineteent h century , wa s ofte n fascinated b y th e strang e beaut y residin g i n a pictorial representatio n o f a deforme d bod y o r a distorte d object . "Mak e th e natur e yo u represen t beautiful": thi s advice , s o ofte n give n t o artist s fro m th e tim e o f Albert i to tha t o f Ingres , coul d her e obviousl y no t provid e th e answer s certai n artists an d thinker s wer e lookin g for . Victor Hug o defende d th e depictio n o f th e ugl y i n ar t o n th e basi s that i t lead s t o a ful l cognitio n an d renderin g o f nature . Gree k ar t idealized nature , but , followin g Victo r Hugo , w e hav e t o sa y tha t precisely fo r thi s reaso n i t wa s one-sided . Victo r Hug o sense d ho w 378

The Artist much th e historica l developmen t o f th e grea t religion s mean t t o art . "Christianity brough t poetr y t o truth, " he says . "Lik e Christianity , th e modern mus e see s thing s fro m a highe r an d large r vantag e point . I t senses tha t i n creatio n no t everythin g i s humanly beautiful, tha t th e ugl y exists alongsid e th e beautiful , th e deforme d nex t t o th e graceful , th e grotesque behin d th e sublime , th e evi l wit h th e good , th e shado w wit h the light." 1S4 Th e basi c reaso n fo r representin g th e ugl y i n ar t i s that i t exists i n reality . Both Hug o an d Rosenkran z wer e awar e o f pictoria l representation s of deforme d figures, bu t th e visua l art s wer e no t a t th e cente r o f thei r reflections. Hug o mention s the m i n passing , bu t Rosenkran z i s mor e explicit. H e ha s a specia l categor y calle d "th e ugl y i n art." 155 I t i s significant, I think, tha t Rosenkranz , althoug h intellectuall y an d physi cally fa r remove d fro m Franc e an d it s avant-gard e movement s i n ar t theory, suggests i n his philosophical idio m a view ver y close t o the idea s of th e Van pour Van movemen t i n France . Art , h e claim s earl y i n hi s discussion o f th e ugly , i s a n absolut e value . "Th e beautiful , bein g th e appearance o f th e ide a t o th e senses , i s absolut e i n itself , an d doe s no t need suppor t fro m outsid e o f itself , a strengthenin g b y mean s o f contrast." But i f one wishe s t o presen t th e ide a in its completeness, on e also has to allo w fo r "th e possibilit y o f th e negative. " The Greeks , to b e sure, concentrate d o n th e representatio n o f idea l figures, bu t the y als o rendered "th e hecatoncheire s [giant s wit h a hundre d hands] , cyclops , satyrs, graiae [gray-haired female protectresse s o f the gorgons], ompusae [filthy demons] , harpies, chimaera. " Lik e Victo r Hug o almos t a generation earlier , Kar l Rosenkran z see s i n religiou s change s a ke y t o th e unriddling o f ou r problem . Wit h th e Christia n religion , h e continue s the discussio n fro m whic h w e hav e jus t quoted , "th e religio n tha t grasped evi l a t it s ver y roo t an d taugh t u s t o overcom e it , th e ugl y i s fully introduce d int o th e worl d o f art." 156 Th e "ver y root " of evil is , of course, th e devil . Th e satanic , o r diabolic, i s th e origi n o f ugliness. Although Hug o an d Rosenkran z thu s accep t th e renderin g o f th e ugly i n art, their treatment o f pictorial representation s remain s abstract. Even th e lis t o f monsters tha t th e Gree k artist s supposedl y carve d i n stone is take n fro m literar y source s rathe r tha n fro m lookin g a t statue s and paintings . Question s broade r tha n th e source s o f certai n monster s 379

Modern Theories of Art also remai n withou t clarification . I n wha t genr e o f paintin g an d sculp ture doe s th e ugl y appear ? A reade r lookin g fo r a n answe r t o thi s question woul d searc h i n vai n i n th e writing s o f eithe r Hug o o r Rosenkranz. It wa s thu s mainl y Baudelair e wh o explore d th e ugl y a s th e subjec t matter o f concret e categorie s i n visua l art . Th e reade r familia r wit h Baudelaire i s not surprise d tha t th e poet-criti c nowher e define s uglines s in an y precis e way , no r tha t h e neve r offer s a n explanatio n o f ho w th e artistic renderin g o f a n ugl y objec t ca n b e perceive d a s beautiful . Ye t without encounterin g an y systemati c exposition , on e feel s tha t fo r man y years th e proble m wa s presen t i n hi s thought . H e ofte n allude s t o it . I n addition t o som e scattere d references , th e essa y o n "Th e Essenc e o f Laughter" (writte n i n 18^^ ) an d th e essay s o n Frenc h an d o n foreig n caricaturists (bot h writte n i n 1857 ) offer importan t lead s t o hi s though t on th e ugl y i n art . Ugliness, w e understan d b y followin g Baudelaire' s tren d o f thought , is mainl y wha t i s oppose d t o harmony ; i t i s th e unresolve d tension , th e conflict o f contradictor y force s tha t ha s bee n lef t standin g a s i t is . Contradiction an d tensio n fascinate d Baudelaire ; h e wa s unde r th e spel l of th e paradox . Thi s ca n b e seen , first o f all , i n hi s poetry , bu t i t als o emerges fro m hi s criticism. Th e essa y on laughte r show s wit h particula r clarity th e spel l tha t parado x hel d fo r him . "Laughte r i s satanic : i t i s thus profoundl y human . . . . An d sinc e laughte r i s essentiall y human , i t is, i n fact , essentiall y contradictory ; tha t i s t o sa y i t i s a t onc e a toke n of a n infinit e grandeu r an d a n infinit e misery . . . . I t i s fro m th e perpetual collisio n o f thes e tw o infinite s tha t laughte r i s struck." 157 The strikingl y nonharmonious , th e unresolve d tension , th e screechin g dissonance ar e manifeste d no t onl y i n behavio r an d experienc e (suc h a s laughter); ther e i s a categor y o f object s an d shape s tha t embod y thes e qualities an d characteristics . Thi s i s th e categor y o f th e grotesque . A s we hav e seen , b y mid-nineteent h centur y th e grotesqu e wa s castin g a spell ove r th e mind s o f artist s an d writers . Viollet-le-Du c revive d (an d modernized) th e Gothi c gargoyle s o f th e cathedrals , an d wrot e beauti fully abou t them . A t abou t th e sam e time , Champfleur y no t onl y composed hi s grea t wor k o n caricatur e bu t als o preface d a boo k o f reproductions (drawings ) o f Gothi c grotesques. 158 Fo r Baudelaire , th e 380

The Artist grotesque foun d it s mos t fascinatin g expressio n i n caricatur e an d i n fantastic art . Hi s essays on caricatur e yiel d ric h results. 159 His treatmen t of Goy a i s particularly indicativ e o f hi s view s o n th e ugl y an d deforme d as a component o f art. Baudelaire's respons e t o Goya' s wor k i n general, an d t o Los Caprichos in particular , i s significan t fa r beyon d th e limit s o f mer e ar t criticism . Some of his poems i n Lesjleurs du mal are inspired by Goya's etchings, 160 and i n hi s critica l discussio n o f th e painter' s wor k h e bring s u p mor e questions o f broa d theoretica l interes t tha n i n mos t o f hi s writing s o n individual artists . "Goya, " h e says , "i s alway s a grea t an d ofte n a terrifying artist." 161 Hi s caricatures , Baudelair e point s out , dra w fro m the grea t Spanis h traditio n o f satire , bu t t o tha t traditio n Goy a unite s "a spiri t fa r mor e modern. " Wha t Baudelair e her e call s "modern " ha s little t o d o wit h subjec t matter . I t is the breakin g throug h o f sacrosanc t borders, th e questionin g o f established , time-honore d concept s o f wha t the ar t o f paintin g can , an d wha t i t cannot , do . Goy a ha s " a love o f th e ungraspable, a feelin g fo r violen t contrasts , fo r th e blan k horror s o f nature an d fo r huma n countenance s weirdl y animalize d b y circum stances." Suc h violen t transformation , bringin g togethe r feature s an d connotations tha t ar e naturall y separate , i s th e ver y opposit e o f wha t the theor y o f decorum taugh t wa s beautiful . "Goya' s great meri t consist s in havin g create d a credible for m o f the monstrous." The monstrous , o f course, i s th e ugl y whos e deformation s g o beyon d th e credible . Goy a makes u s believ e i n it . "Al l thos e distortions , thos e bestia l faces , thos e diabolic grimaces o f his are impregnated wit h humanity. " The studen t wil l evidentl y as k wha t i s th e valu e o f thes e convincin g representations o f th e deformed . O n wha t ground s doe s Baudelair e defend, o r justify, th e renderin g o f th e ugl y i n art? Here w e canno t rel y on Hugo' s arguments . Victo r Hug o justified depictin g th e ugl y i n art o n the basi s tha t i t exist s i n nature . It s renderin g i n literature an d paintin g amounts t o givin g a fulle r accoun t o f reality . Bu t Baudelair e praise s Goya fo r havin g conjure d u p i n hi s wor k ugly , deformed , hideou s creatures tha t do not exis t i n reality . Hi s witche s an d monster s ar e creatures o f th e imagination , an d h e i s specificall y praise d fo r makin g the unrea l credible . Th e ultimat e reaso n Baudelair e ca n give fo r praisin g Goya's distorte d creature s i s tha t the y ar e beautiful . 381

Modern Theories of Art His monster s ar e bor n viable , harmonious . . . . Eve n fro m th e specia l viewpoint o f natura l histor y i t woul d b e har d t o condem n them , s o great i s the analogy an d harmony betwee n th e parts of their being . In a word, the line of suture, the point of junction betwee n the real and the fantastic i s impossible to grasp; it i s a vague frontier whic h no t eve n the subtlest analys t coul d trace , such i s the extent t o which th e transcendent an d the natural concur in his art. The genera l conclusio n t o b e draw n fro m Baudelaire' s analysi s o f Goya's monster s i s clear . In th e final analysis , th e beaut y o f ar t i s independent o f th e beaut y o f nature . Th e artis t ca n produc e a visio n that i s ugl y i n term s o f natura l creatures , bu t tha t ha s a fascinatin g beauty o f it s own . I t i s th e ultimat e triump h o f th e ar t fo r art' s sak e principle. Th e artist' s imaginatio n i s independen t eve n o f th e universa l structure o f beauty .

NOTES 1. Willia m Duff , An Essay on Original Genius (1767) . I am usin g th e facsimil e reprint , edited b y Joh n L . Mahone y (Gainesville , Fla. , 1964) . Pag e reference s (give n i n parentheses i n th e text ) refe r t o thi s edition . An d se e th e interestin g discussio n in James Engell , The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism (Cambridge , Mass., 1981) , pp . 8 4 ff . 2. Se e Theories of Art: From Plato to Winkelmann, pp . 17 1 ff . 3. Se e Georg e Sidne y Brett , A History of Psychology, 3 vols . (Londo n an d Ne w York , 1912-1932). 4. Se e above , Chapte r 3 , especially pp . 15 7 ff . 5. Charle s Batteaux , Les beaux arts reduits a un meme principe (Paris, 1746) . Batteau x also publishe d a five-volume work , Principe de la litterature (Paris, 1764) . 6. Sulzer' s major wor k i s Allgemeine Theorie der schonen Kiinste, 4 vols . (Leipzig , 177 1 — 1774). 7. See , fo r instance , Ja n Bialostocki , "Th e Renaissanc e Concep t o f Natur e an d Antiquity," The Renaissance and Mannerism (Act s o f th e Twentiet h Internationa l Congress o f th e Histor y o f Art) , (Princeton, 1963) , II , pp. 19-30 . 8. Th e bes t discussio n remain s Erwi n Panofsky' s Idea (New York , 1968 ; originall y published i n Germa n i n 1924) . 9. I refer , o f course , t o th e famou s stor y o f Zeuxis' s statu e o f Hele n (o r Venus) , which wa s compose d b y imitatin g th e mos t beautifu l part s o f th e bodie s o f th e five mos t beautifu l maiden s o f Croton . Fo r som e sources , se e Theories of Art, pp. 125 ff. , an d especiall y Panofsky , Idea, pp. 1 5 ff . 382

The Artist 10. Fo r Mengs's concep t o f th e Ideal , se e Monik a Sutter , Die kunsttheoretischen Begriffe des Malerphilosophen Anton Raphael Mengs (Munich , 1968) , pp . 3 0 ff. And see above , pp. 9 0 ff . 11. Fo r Sulzer' s concep t o f th e creativ e imagination , whic h i s implie d rathe r tha n explicitly stated , se e James Engell , The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism (Cambridge , Mass. , 1981) , pp . 10 3 ff . 12. Goethe' s revie w o f Sulzer' s wor k o n aesthetics , publishe d i n 1772 , i s ofte n reprinted. Se e Goethes Werke, Hambur g editio n (Munich , 1949-1962) , vol . 1 2 (1962), pp . 1 7 ff . 13. I shall us e th e Englis h editio n o f Wackenroder' s wor k translate d an d annotate d by Mar y Hurs t Schuber t unde r th e titl e Confessions and Fantasies (Universit y Park , Pa. an d London , 1971) , whic h include s severa l o f Wackenroder' s writings . References wil l b e given , i n parentheses , i n th e text , th e figure referrin g t o th e page numbe r o f th e Englis h translation . 14. H . Woelfflin , Kleine Schriften (Basle , 1944) , p . 205 . 15. Se e Mar y Hurs t Schubert' s introductio n t o he r translatio n o f Wackenroder' s writings (Confessions and Fantasies), esp . pp . 4 4 ff . 16. Fo r K. P . Moritz's concepts , se e Kar l Borinski , Die Antike in Poetik and Kunsttheorie, II (Leipzig , 1924) , pp . 27 6 K. An d se e als o J . Engell , The Creative Imagination, pp . 113 ff . 17. Fo r Vasari' s statement , se e Giorgi o Vasari , The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans . A . B . Hind s (Everyman' s Library ) (Ne w York , 1927) , II , pp. 17 6 ff. Fo r Leonardo' s statemen t (emphasizin g mainl y th e contemplatio n o f old walls , but als o mentionin g clouds) , se e Leonard o d a Vinci , Treatise on Painting, trans . A . Philip McMaho n (Princeton , 1956) , I , pp . 5 0 f . Renaissanc e though t o n th e inspiration th e artis t get s b y lookin g a t th e cloud s ha s bee n brilliantl y discusse d by H . W . Janso n i n 16 Studies (New York , n . d.) , pp . 53-69 . I don't kno w o f a similar investigatio n o f thi s interestin g subjec t i n Romanti c thought . 18. Fo r this famou s reference , se e Panofsky , Idea, pp. 5 9 ff . 19. B y Mariann e Frey , i n Der Kunstler und sein Werk bei W. H. Wackenroder und E. T A. Hoffmann: Vergleichende Studien zur romantischen Kunstanschauung (Bern , 1970) , pp . 19 ff . 20. Se e Augus t Langen , Der Wortschatz des deutschen Pietismus (Tubingen , 1954) . 21. Se e Mose s Mendelssohn , Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig , 1888) , I I pp . 15 3 ff . Mendelssohn's idea s wer e originall y expresse d i n hi s Phaedon oder iiber die Unsterblichkeit der Seek in drey Gesprachen (Berli n an d Stettin , 1767) . 22. Fo r Erwin, I use th e reprin t o f 1907 . Th e Vorlesungen, edite d fro m Solger' s note s (there wa s n o final manuscrip t b y Solge r himself ) b y K . W . L . Heyse , appeare d in 1829 , an d wa s reprinte d i n 1929 . I translate fro m th e origina l edition . 23. Figure s i n parentheses , give n i n th e text , refe r t o th e 190 7 editio n o f Erwin. 24. Se e Herber t Mainusch , Romantische Aesthetik (Ba d Homburg , 1960 ) pp . 6 7 ff. , an d the stud y b y Wolfhar t Heckmann , "Symbo l un d Allegori e be i K . W . F . Solger, " in Romantik in Deutschland: Ein interdisziplinares Symposium, ed . R . Brinkman n 383

Modern Theories of Art (Sonderband de r Deutsche n Vierteljahrsschrif t fu r Literaturwissenschaf t un d Geistesgeschichte) (Stuttgart , 1978) , pp . 63 9 ff. , esp . p . 640 . 25. Se e mainl y Schelling' s Vorlesungen uber die Methode des akademischen Studiums, published i n 1803 , a s wel l a s hi s lecture s o n th e philosoph y o f ar t (Philosophie der Kunst), give n i n 1802-0 3 an d 1804-05 , whic h ha d a wid e circulatio n i n manu script for m befor e the y wer e publishe d a t a later date . 26. I n Erwin, the distinctio n betwee n th e tw o modes , thoug h present , i s no t full y developed o r explicitl y stated . I n th e Vorlesungen, Solge r devote d mor e attentio n to thi s subject , an d hi s formulation s ar e mor e explicit . Se e especiall y pp . 13 2 ff . for a thorough an d interestin g discussio n o f allegor y an d sign . 27. Als o availabl e i n reprints . 28. Philip p Ott o Runge , Hinterlassene Schriften, 2 vols . (Hamburg , 1840) . Reference s are give n i n parenthese s i n th e text , Roma n numeral s indicatin g th e volume , Arabic th e pag e number . 29. Se e M . Barasch , Light and Color in Italian Renaissance Theory of Art (Ne w York , 1978), passim, esp. pp . 2 2 ff. , 17 1 ff . 30. I n a forthcomin g stud y o n colo r symbolism , I discus s i n detai l som e o f thes e earlier attempts . Th e stud y wil l b e publishe d i n th e act s o f a Philadelphi a symposium (Templ e University ) o n colo r i n Renaissanc e art . 31. Se e m y Light and Color, pp . 17 8 ff . 32. Se e Hein z Lippuner , Wackenroder, Tieck und die bildende Kunst (Dresden, 1934) , pp . 11 ff. y 12 3 ff . 33. Quote d (an d translated ) fro m Caspar David Friedrich in Brief en und Bekenntnissen, ed . S. Hin z (Berlin , 1968) . Th e pag e number s o f thi s editio n ar e given , i n parenthe ses, i n th e tex t afte r ever y quotation . 34. Se e above , pp . 25 9 ff 35. Se e Leone Battista Alberti on Painting and on Sculpture, wit h Introduction , translatio n and note s b y C . Grayso n (London , 1972) , p . 135 . 36. F . W . J . Schelling , Rede iiber das Verhdltnis der bildenden Kiinste zur Natur (Philoso phische Bibliothek , Hef t 60 ) (Leipzig , 1911) . 37. Fo r this quotation , se e Caspa r Davi d Friedrich , Bekenntnisse (Leipzig , 1924 ; 1840) , p. 63 . 38. I quot e fro m Joh n Durand' s translatio n o f Taine' s lectures , t o b e foun d i n Philosophy of Art, (Ne w York , 1888) . Reference s t o thi s editio n ar e give n i n parentheses i n th e text , Roma n numeral s referrin g t o th e volume , Arabi c numerals t o th e pag e numbers . 39. Thi s particula r characte r o f Taine' s approac h ha s ofte n bee n noted . See , fo r example, Ren e Wellek , A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950, IV , The Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1983) , pp . 27-57 , esp . pp . 4 1 ff . Welle k give s valuable reference s t o furthe r critica l literature . 40. Fo r brie f reference s t o som e earlie r version s o f thi s problem , se e Theories of Art, pp. 12 5 ff . 41. Taine' s dependenc e o n Hege l i n matter s o f aesthetic s ha s bee n stresse d b y Ren e Wellek i n hi s A History of Modern Criticism, IV , pp . 3 5 ff .

3

84

The Artist 42. Fo r a possibl e connectio n betwee n Tain e an d Condillac , se e Wellek , A History, IV, p. 35 . 43. See , fo r instance , wha t Didero t say s abou t Chardi n i n hi s revie w o f th e Salo n o f 1765: "I f i t i s true , a s th e philosopher s say , tha t ther e i s nothin g rea l bu t ou r sensations, tha t neithe r th e emptines s o f spac e no r eve n th e solidit y o f bodie s possesses anythin g i n itsel f of wha t w e experienc e fro m it , the n le t the m tel l me , those philosophers , wha t differenc e the y ca n find, fou r fee t awa y fro m you r paintings, betwee n th e Creato r an d you. " Se e Diderot's Selected Writings, trans. D. Coltman , ed . L . Crooke r (Ne w Yor k an d London , 1966) , p . 154 . 44. See , fo r instance , wha t Didero t say s i n reviewin g th e Salo n o f 1767 : "Everythin g that astonishe s th e soul , everythin g tha t impresse s i t wit h a sensatio n o f terror , leads t o th e sublime. " Diderot's Selected Writings, p . 174 . 45. Wellek , A History, IV, pp . 27 , 3 2 ff . 46. Ibid. , P . 41. 47. Histoire de la litterature anglaise (Paris, 1864) , V , pp . 4 ff . An d se e Wellek , IV , p. 45 . 48. Se e Gedanken iiber die Nachahmung, i n Winckelmann's Werke, ed. Ferno w (Dresden , 1808), I , p . 9 , an d especiall y hi s History of Ancient Art, (Englis h translatio n b y G . Henry Lodg e (Boston , 1860) , th e first par t o f Chapte r IV . 49. Th e literatur e o n thi s subjec t is , o f course , huge . Consul t Harr y Levin , The Gates of Horn: A Study of Five French Realists (New York , 1966) , esp . pp . 6 4 ff , fo r th e general context s o f realism. An d se e Ren e Wellek' s articl e "Th e Concep t o f Realism i n Literar y Scholarship " i n Wellek' s Concepts of Criticism (Ne w Have n and London , 1963) , pp. 222-255 , fo r th e histor y o f the ter m i n literary criticism . Emile Bouvier' s La bataille realiste (1844-1857 (Paris , 1913 ) i s als o essential . A n orientation o n th e histor y o f th e ter m an d th e movemen t i n nineteenth-centur y art (primaril y painting ) i s give n b y Lind a Nochli n i n Realism (Penguin Books , 1971). 50. Fo r Proudho n a s a Utopian , a matter tha t ha s som e relatio n t o hi s view s o n art , see Fran k Manue l an d Fritzi e Manuel , Utopian Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, Mass. , 1979) , pp . 740-747 . A great dea l o f informatio n i s collecte d in th e dissertatio n b y Pierr e Palix , Le gout litteraire et artistique de P. J. Proudhon (Lille an d Paris , 1977) . Fo r Proudhon' s view s o n th e visua l arts , se e esp . pp . 815-1003. 51. Se e P . J . Proudhon , Contradictions economiques ou Philosophic de la misere (Paris, 1850), p . 326 , an d Du principe de Van et de sa destination social (Paris , 1865) , pp . 1 5 ff. (her e quote d fro m Palix , Le gout litteraire et artistique de P. J. Proudhon, pp . 87 3 and 905) . 52. I n De la justice dans la revolution et dans Teglise (Paris , 1930 ; originall y publishe d 1858), III , pp. 58 2 ff ; Palix , pp . 88 7 ff . 53. I use th e Englis h translatio n o f Elizabet h Fraser , i n Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, ed . S . Edward s (Garde n City , N . Y. , 1969) , pp . 21 4 ff . Th e origina l i s in Du principe de Tart, p . 310 . 54. Selected Writings, p . 216 ; Du principe de Tart, p. 316 .

38*

Modern Theories of Art 55. Selected Writings, p . 217 ; Du principe de Van, pp . 31 9 ff . "Househol d interiors " are not precisel y image s o f man , bu t the y clearl y ar e th e environmen t shape d b y man. Proudho n actuall y adduce s thi s example , a s th e others , t o indicat e th e expression o f a social mood , namel y cheerfulness . 56. Se e Palix , p . 876 . Thi s not e seem s no t hav e bee n publishe d befor e Palix . 57. Th e bes t surve y o f Champfleury' s view s i s stil l Emil e Bouvier , La bataille reliste (1844-1857) (Paris , 1913) . I use th e reprint o f 1973 . Fo r Champfleury's attitud e towards th e ar t o f th e past , se e especiall y pp . 21 4 ff . 58. Se e Champfleury' s Pamphlet o f Septembe r 24-28 , quote d b y Bouvie r i n La bataille realiste, p. 230 . 59. Se e Bouvier , pp . 21 8 ff . 60. Ibid. , pp . 23 0 ff . 61. I a m quotin g an d translatin g fro m th e moder n reprint : Champfleury , Grandes figures d'hier et d'aujourd'hui: Balzac, Gerard de Nerval, Wagner, Courbet (Geneva , 1968), p . iii . 62. Quote d i n Bouvier , p . 249 . 63. Fo r th e meanin g o f "simplicity " i n Winckelmann' s thought , se e above , pp . 0 0 ff . 64. Grandes figures,p. 239 . 65. Se e Bouvier , p . 221 . 66. Grandes figures,p. 225 . 67. Ibid. , p . 252 . 68. Ibid. , p . 253 . 69. Ibid , p . 257 . 70. Th e literatur e o n th e reques t tha t artist s turn t o thei r ow n tim e i s o f cours e quite large , an d littl e o f i t i s devote d t o th e reason s fo r th e critics ' attitude . Bu t see th e concis e analysi s b y Lind a Nochli n i n Realism, pp . 10 4 ff . 71. Grandes figures,p. 253 . 72. Se e below , pp . 37 6 ff . 73. Grandes figures,p. 236 . 74. Se e P . Cailler , e d , Courbet: Kaconte par lui-meme et par ses amis, (Geneva, 1950) , I , p. 48 . Englis h translatio n i n Elizabet h G . Holt , From the Classicists to the Impressionists: A Documentary History of Art and Architecture in the Nineteenth Century (Garden City, N . Y , 1966) , p . 348 . 75. Holt , From the Classicists to the Impressionists, p . 349 . 76. Quote d i n Bouvier , p . 231 . 77. I use a reprint o f th e Englis h translatio n (Ne w York , 1963) , wit h a n introductio n by Meye r Schapiro . I n quoting fro m Maitres d'autrefois, I will us e thi s translation . Page reference s ar e given , i n parentheses , i n th e text . Schapiro' s remar k quote d above i s foun d o n p . i x o f th e introduction . Fo r mor e recen t discussion s (i n English) o f Fromentin , thoug h mainl y a s a writer, se e Arthu r Evans , The Literary Art of Eugene Fromentin (Baltimore, 1964) , an d Emanue l Mickel , Jr. , Eugene Fromentin (Boston , 1981) . 78. Se e Mickel , Fromentin, p . 26 . 79. Quote d i n Mickel , Fromentin, p . 29 . 80. Se e particularl y th e entrie s fo r Januar y 11 , 13 , 23 , 2 5 an d Februar y 4 o f 1857 ,

386

The Artist in Journal d'Eugene Delacroix, ed . P . Pau l Flat , 3 vols . (Paris , 1893-1895) , Vol . 3 , pp. 1 1 ff. , 6 0 f . 81. Se e Eugen e E . Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonne de 1'architecture Frangaise du Xlme au XVIme siecle (Paris , 1853—1868) , an d hi s Dictionnaire raisonne du mobilier Frangais de l'epoaue Carlovingienne a la Renaissance (Paris , 1858—1875) . 82. Fo r thi s subject , se e Georg e Mras , Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art (Princeton , 1966), pp . 1 5 ff . I shal l a t time s follo w thi s study . I n th e emphasi s o n th e soul , Mras says , Delacroi x wa s followin g Diderot . I n additio n t o Mras , se e especiall y the observation s b y Jean Sezne c i n Diderot Salons, ed . J . Sezne c an d J. Adhemar , I (Oxford, 1957) , pp . 1 ff. 83. See Journal d'Eugene Delacroix, III , p . 44 : entr y fo r Januar y 25 , 1857 . An d se e G . Mras, Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art, pp . 7 2 ff . 84. I us e her e Jonatha n Mayne' s Englis h translatio n o f Baudelaire' s The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, (New York , 1986) , pp . 4 1 ff , esp . p . 48 . Fo r Baudelaire, se e th e sectio n below , pp . 36 2 ff . 85. See Journal, III, p . 232 . Thi s entr y i s reprinte d i n Holt , From the Classicists to the Impressionists, p . 171 . 86. Se e th e lette r t o Constan t Dutilleu x o f Marc h 7 , 1854 , i n Correspondance generale d'Eugene Delacroix, ed . Andr e Joubin , 5 vols . (Paris , 1936-1938) , III , p . 196 . An d cf. Mras , Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art, pp . 5 3 ff . 87. Journal, II , p. 437 : note d o n Apri l 6 , 1856 . 88. Se e hi s Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art, esp . pp . 7 8 ff . 89. Bot h th e origina l entr y fo r Ma y 9 , 1853 , an d it s amplificatio n ar e given i n Holt , pp. 162-163 . 90. Se e Alber t Boime , The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1971) , pp . 7 9 ff . 91. Filipp o Baldinucci , Vocabolario toscano dell' arte del disegno (Florence , 1681) , p . 148 . 92. Ibid. , p . 1 . 93. Holt , pp . 16 2 ff . 94. I n hi s Mello n Lectures , given i n 197 4 a t th e Nationa l Galler y o f Ar t i n Washing ton, D . C , an d s o fa r unpublished . I n Janson's 19th Century Sculpture (Ne w York , 1985), som e o f th e sam e idea s ar e suggested , bu t onl y i n a vagu e an d genera l way. 95. Fo r "ruins " an d follies , se e th e stil l unsurpasse d wor k b y M . L . Gothein , A History of Garden Art, trans . Archer-Hin d (Londo n an d Toronto , n.d. ; originall y published i n Germa n i n Jena, 1926) , II , pp. 5f f 96. Nicola s Boileau , th e leadin g Frenc h criti c o f th e Neoclassica l age , i n hi s L'art poetique offers thi s advic e t o th e poe t composin g a poem: Polissez-le sans cesse et le repolissez; Ajoutez quelquefois, et souvent effacez . See Oeuvres completes de Boileau-Despreaux (Paris , 1835) , I , p . 244 . 97. Se e Diderot , Salons, ed. J . Sezne c an d J . Adhemar , I I (Oxford , 1960) , p . 153 . I use th e translatio n give n b y Boim e i n The Academy and French Painting, p . 84 . 98. Diderot , Salons, II I (Oxford, 1963) , p . 241 .

387

Modern Theories of Art 99. Ibid. , p . 242 . 100. Se e Boime , p . 83 . 101. Se e Mras , Delacroix's Theory of Art, pp . 8 6 ff . 102. Delacroi x Journal, II , pp. 10 2 ff . 103. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 35 5 ff . wit h reference s t o furthe r literature . 104. Journal, I , p . 459 : not e o f Februar y 23 , 1852 . Fo r a discussio n of Delacroix' s theoretical view s o n color , se e Mras , Delacroix's Theory of Art, pp . 11 9 ff . 105. Plutarch , Moralia, translate d b y F . C . Babbitt , (London , 1927) , I , p . 83 . Thi s sentence i s found i n th e essa y calle d "Ho w th e youn g ma n shoul d stud y poetry. " 106. Se e Diderot , Oeuvres esthetiques, ed . P . Vernier e (Paris , 1968) , p . 674 . Thi s i s th e opening sentenc e o f th e secon d chapte r o f th e Essai sur la peinture. 107. Journal, III, p. 56 : noted o n January 25 , 1857 . 108. Dupu y d e Grez , Traite sur la peinture pour en apprendre la theorie et se perfectionner dans la pratique (Toulouse, 1699) , p . 208 . 109. Madam e d e Stael , De l'Allemagne, 3 vols. (Paris , 1818) . 110. Baudelair e wrot e thi s i n hi s introductio n t o Pierr e Dupont , Chants et chansons (Paris, 1851) ; reprinted i n Baudelaire , Van romantique, ed . J. Crepe t (Paris , 1925) . For th e application s o f th e principl e t o literature , se e th e clea r expositio n i n Rene Wellek , A History of Modern Criticism, I V (Cambridge, 1983) , pp . 434-452 . 111. Van romantique, pp . 320 , 284 . 112. Se e Charle s Baudelaire , The fainter of Modern Life and Other Essays, trans . Jonatha n Mayne (Ne w York , 1986) , p . 204 . 113. Victo r Cousin , Du vrai, du beau et du bien, ed. A . Gamie r (Paris , 1917) , pp . 22 3 iL (This wa s th e thirtiet h editio n o f Cousin' s work , a goo d indicatio n o f it s popularity.) Fo r th e proble m i n general, consul t th e stil l valuabl e presentatio n b y Albert Cassagne , La theorie de Van pour Van en Trance (Paris, 1906 ; reprinte d Geneva, 1979) . Fo r a mor e comprehensiv e vie w o f th e origin s o f Van pour Van, see th e articl e b y M . H . Abrams , "Kan t an d th e Theolog y o f Art, " Notre Dame English Journal 13 (1981): 75-106 . 114. Cousin , Du vrai, du beau et du bien, p. 224 . Her e I us e th e Englis h translatio n i n the Abram s article , p . 97 . 115. Se e Cassagne , La theorie de Van pour Van en France, pp . 14 2 ff . 116. Thi s thesi s ha s assume d man y variations . Th e mos t sophisticate d i s probabl y Walter Benjamin's , bes t see n i n hi s Charles Baudelaire: Ein Lyriker im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus (Frankfur t a m Main , 1969) , esp . pp . 7 2 ff . I n a mor e simplisti c form, thi s explanatio n i s pu t forwar d b y Arnol d Hause r i n The Social History of Art (New York , 1958) , HI , pp. 147 , 193 , 211 . 117. Thes e term s ar e use d i n th e revie w o f th e Salo n o f 1859 . Se e Charle s Baudelaire , Art in Paris 1845-1862, trans . Jonathan Mayn e (Oxford , 1965) , p . 1954 . 118. Art in Paris, p . 155 . 119. Se e th e revie w o f th e Salo n o f 185 9 i n Art in Paris, p . 154 ; also Curiosites esthetiques; Van romantique, ed . H . Lemattre (Paris , 1962) , p . 319 . 120. Art in Paris, p . 152 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 317 . 121. Art in Paris, p . 162 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 329 .

388

The Artist 122. The Painter of Modern Life, pp. 10 2 f. ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 630 . 123. Art in Paris, p . 157 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 322 . 124. Art in Paris, p . 162 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 329 . 125. Art in Paris, p . 159 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 325 . Fo r th e proble m o f imaginatio n i n English aesthetic s o f th e earl y nineteent h century , 1 should lik e t o refe r agai n t o James Engell , The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism (Cambridge , Mass., 1981) . Se e especiall y pp . 172-183 , fo r th e distinctio n betwee n "fancy " and "imagination. " I n Englis h aestheti c thought , however , i t i s literar y produc tion tha t occupie s th e attentio n o f th e writers . Question s o f th e specificall y visual imagination ar e les s prominen t tha n i n Baudelaire . 126. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 47 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 429 . 127. Art in Paris, p . 155 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 320 . 128. Art in Paris, p . 156 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 321 . 129. Art in Paris, p . 50 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 108 . 130. Art in Paris, p. 57 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 118 . Hein e wrot e hi s piec e a s a revie w of th e Salo n o f 1831 , and i t wa s publishe d i n a French translation . 131. Ren e Wellek , A History of Modern Criticism, IV , p. 439 . 132. Ibid. , p . 438 . 133. Th e literatur e o n Swedenbor g an d hi s influenc e o n eighteenth-an d nineteenth century though t i s large . A clea r an d detaile d representatio n o f hi s doctrin e i s found i n Erns t Benz , Emanuel Swedenborg: Naturforscher und Seher (Munich, 1948) , esp. pp . 387-576 . Fo r hi s impac t o n Coleridg e (wh o ha s man y parallel s wit h Baudelaire), se e Thoma s McFarland , Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition (Oxford, 1969), esp . pp . 28 3 ff . 134. Quote d i n Wellek , p . 438 . 135. Curiosites esthetiques, p . 676 . Th e articl e i s no t include d i n th e Englis h translation s of Baudelaire' s criticis m I have use d i n thi s section . Th e Englis h wordin g i s take n from Wellek , p . 438 . 136. Se e Curiosites esthetiques, p. 213 . Th e quotatio n i s take n fro m th e revie w o f th e 1855 worl d exhibition , which , s o fa r a s I know , ha s no t bee n translate d int o English. 137. Quote d i n Wellek , p . 439 . 138. Curiosites esthetiques, p. 734 . Th e translatio n i s Wellek's , p . 441 . Thi s passage i s found i n Baudelaire' s discussio n o f Victo r Hugo , bu t obviousl y i t i s also vali d fo r the painter . 139. Quote d afte r Wellek , p . 436 . 140. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 45 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 426 . 141. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 45 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 426 . 142. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 44 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 425 . 143. Thoug h thi s famou s maxi m ha s bee n use d ver y frequently , ther e seem s t o b e n o comprehensive stud y o f it s histor y i n th e theor y o f th e visua l arts . Fo r som e o f the use s mad e o f i t i n moder n criticis m an d theoretica l thought , se e above , pp . 17 ff., 13 0 ff . 144. Wellek , p . 443 . 389

Modern Theories of Art 145. Quotation s afte r Wellek , p . 450 . 146. Se e The Painter of Modern Life, pp . 1-40 ; Curiosites esthetiques, pp. 453-50 2 (th e whole essay) . Th e titl e o f Chapte r X I o f th e essa y (i n English ) i s translate d a s "I n Praise o f Cosmetics. " Th e Frenc h maquillage, th e wor d Baudelair e uses , i s mor e correctly translate d a s "make-up, " and thi s term , I believe, als o bette r expresse s the author' s intention . 147. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 31 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 490 . 148. Se e J. d e Maistre , Les soirees de Saint-Petersbourg (Paris , n . d.) , I , p. 235 . Baudelair e himself sai d elsewher e tha t Josep h d e Maistre , togethe r wit h Edga r Alla n Poe , "taught [him ] to think. " Se e not e 1 (by th e editor ) i n Curiosites esthetiques, p . 490 . 149. The Painter of Modern Life, p. 34 ; Curiosites esthetiques, p . 493 . 150. Se e Theories of Art, pp . 9 5 ff. , wit h reference s t o furthe r discussions . 151. Se e "Di e klassisch e un d di e christlich e Rechtfertigun g de s Hassliche n i n mittelal terlicher Literatur, " i n Han s Rober t Jauss , Alteritat und Modernitat der mittelalterlichen Literatur (Munich , 1977) , pp . 143-168 . 152. Victo r Hugo , Cromwell (Paris, n . d. ; editions n e varietur) , pp . 1-47 . 153. Kar l Rosenkranz , Aesthetik des Hasslichen (Konigsberg , 1853) , p . 7 . 154. Cromwell, p . 8 . 155. Aesthetik des Hasslichen, pp . 3 5 ((. 156. Ibid., pp. 38-39 . 157. The Painter of Modern Life, pp. 153-154 ; Curiosites sethetiques, p . 253 . 158. Fo r Viollet-le-Duc , se e above , pp . 21 3 ff. ; fo r Champfleury' s wor k o n caricature , see above , pp . 340 ; and se e als o Jules Adeline , Les sculptures grotesques et symboliques (Rouen et environs), preface par Champfleury (Paris , 1878) . 159. Th e essay s are : "O n th e Essenc e o f Laughte r and , i n general , o n th e comi c i n the plasti c arts, " "O n Som e Frenc h Caricaturists, " an d "O n Som e Foreig n Caricaturists," publishe d i n tha t order , i n The Painter of Modern Life, pp. 147-165 , 166-186, an d 187-196 ; and , i n th e sam e order , i n Curiosites esthetiques, pp . 2 4 1 263, 265-289 , an d 291-304 . 160. Se e Marce l A . Ruff , Vesprit du mal et Yesthetique Baudelairienne (Paris , 1955 ; reprinted Geneva , 1972) , pp . 306-307 . 161. Fo r hi s discussio n o f Goya' s caricatures , fro m whic h al l th e quotation s i n thi s paragraph ar e taken , se e The Painter of Modern Life, pp . 191-193 ; Curiosites esthetiques, pp . 295-299 .

390

Bibliographical Essa y

I have designe d thi s bibliographica l essa y t o serv e a threefol d purpose : while i t i s primarily mean t t o assis t th e reade r who wishe s t o follo w u p discussions o f th e problem s raise d i n thi s volume , I would als o lik e t o record her e som e o f m y majo r intellectua l debt s an d t o indicat e (s o fa r as thi s i s possibl e i n th e limite d spac e available ) th e reason s fo r m y positions. I t goe s withou t sayin g tha t i n th e followin g remark s I shal l not attemp t t o lis t full y eve n al l th e mos t importan t studie s o n a given subject. O n th e contrary , I shal l b e selective , an d choos e only suc h contributions a s mee t m y tripl e definition . I t shoul d b e kep t i n min d that th e progres s o f researc h int o th e differen t theme s an d area s discussed her e ha s been uneven , a state o f affairs necessaril y reflecte d i n this bibliographica l essay .

I: TH E EARL Y EIGHTEENT H CENTUR Y The literatur e o n th e Enlightenment , eve n i f w e limi t ourselve s t o th e problems o f aesthetics , i s o f cours e enormous , an d thu s make s i t especially difficult t o make a selection. Erns t Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (origina l Germa n edition, 1932 ; English translation, Prince ton, 19^1) , remain s a classi c contribution , thoug h th e author' s view s 39i

Bibliographical Essay have no t gon e uncriticized . Fo r ou r purpose , Cassirer' s chapte r o n aesthetics i s particularl y significant . Basi l Willey , The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies on the Idea of Nature in the Thought of the Period (London, 1940), whil e i t doe s no t discus s paintin g o r sculpture , i s helpful becaus e the concep t o f Natur e i s o f suc h crucia l importanc e i n th e theorie s o f art. I n th e sam e context , w e shoul d als o remembe r Joha n Huizinga' s persuasive essa y u Naturbild un d Gechichtsbil d i m achtzehnte n Jahrhun dert," availabl e i n a collectio n o f hi s article s entitle d Parerga (Basel , 194^). Arthu r O . Lovejoy' s celebrate d essay s i n th e histor y o f ideas , including som e chapter s o f The Great Chain of Being: A Study in the History of an Idea (Cambridge , Mass. , 1936 ) a s wel l a s severa l o f th e article s collected i n Essays in the History of Ideas (Baltimore, 1948) , als o d o no t deal directl y wit h th e theor y o f art , bu t ar e illuminatin g fo r a n under standing o f th e context s i n Enlightenmen t thought . Th e religiou s aspec t of th e Enlightenmen t i s studie d i n Fran k Manuel , The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods (Cambridge, Mass., 19^9) . For specific development s o f Enlightenment though t i n Germany , particularl y i n th e earl y par t o f th e eighteenth century , Han s M . Wolff , Die Weltanschauung der deutschen Aufklarung (Bern, 1949 ) provides stimulatin g instruction . For a n informativ e an d usefu l surve y o f aestheti c though t durin g th e Enlightenment, see th e appropriat e chapter s (especiall y chapter s VIII — XI) i n Katharin e E . Gilber t an d Helmu t Kuhn , A History of Esthetics (Ne w York, 1939 ; reprinte d Ne w York , 1972) . Th e classi c wor k b y Kar l Borinski, Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie (I , Leipzig , 1914 ; II, Leipzig , 1924), whil e no t precisel y limite d t o ou r period , i s a n enlightenin g an d thought-provoking discussio n o f reflections o n art , especially o n classica l art, focusin g largel y o n th e eighteent h century . Franci s Coleman , The Aesthetic Thought of the French Enlightenment (Pittsburgh , 1971 ) surveys th e most importan t development s o f aestheti c reflectio n i n France . A n article b y Georg e Boas , "The Art s i n the Encyclopedic, "Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 2 3 (1964) : 97—107 , discusse s view s o n th e art s i n th e pivotal wor k o f th e period , th e Encyclopedic Studies dealin g specificall y wit h Enlightenmen t theorie s o f paintin g and sculptur e ar e no t numerous . Fo r France , w e hav e th e stil l classi c treatment b y Andr e Fontaine , Les doctrines d'art en France (Paris , 1909 ; reprinted Geneva , 1970) , Chapter s VI-IX . Ar t criticism , particularl y b y 392

Bibliographical Essay Diderot, ha s received clos e attentio n i n recen t year s (see below) . Usefu l on a broader scale i s the ric h collection o f lengthy passages , culled fro m eighteenth-century Frenc h authors , arrange d accordin g t o individua l topics i n th e theor y o f painting , wit h comment s b y Peter-Eckhar d Knabe, Schlusselbegriffe des kunsttheoretischen Denkens in Frankreicb von der Spatklassik bis zum Ende der Aufklarung (Diisseldorf , 1972) . I shall no w tur n t o th e individua l authors . Vico's writing s ar e availabl e i n a goo d Englis h translation , an d i n somewhat abbreviate d for m als o i n a paperbac k edition . Se e The New Science of Giambattista Vico, translate d b y Thoma s G . Bergi n an d M . H . Fisch (Garden City , N . Y. , 1961) . The moder n "discovery " of Vico , an d the subsequen t flourishing o f Vic o studie s (whic h ar e still thriving) , ha s so fa r no t produce d a treatment o f Vico' s view s o n th e visua l arts . Th e classic work s o n Vico , b y Benedett o Croc e (Bari , 1911 ) an d Robi n G . Collingwood (London , 1913) , concentrat e o n differen t problems . W e hope tha t Meye r Schapir o wil l soo n publis h hi s long-awaite d stud y o n that subject . I n th e meantime , som e discussion s brin g u s close r t o it , though the y d o no t dea l wit h i t directly . Isaia h Berlin' s Vico & Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas (Ne w York , 1976) , esp . pp . 1-142 , i s useful t o th e studen t o f ar t theor y i n outlinin g Vico' s intellectua l personality an d his major sources o f inspiration . Close r t o ou r subject i s R. R . Caponigri , Time and Idea: The Theory of History in Giambattista Vico (London, 1953) , bu t thi s als o doe s no t dea l wit h th e art s specifically . Erich Auerbach' s celebrate d studie s o f Vico' s attitud e t o literatur e ar e illuminating t o th e studen t o f visua l image s a s well. Dubos's grea t wor k o n th e art s ha s no t bee n translated , bu t i s available i n a recent reprint . Se e D u Bos , Reflexions critiques sur la poesie et sur la peinture (Geneva , 1967) . A . Lombard , VAbbe Du Bos: un initiateur de la pensee moderne (Paris , 1913 ; reprinted Geneva , 1969 ) gives a balance d account o f Dubos' s lif e an d work . Unfortunatel y fo r ou r purpose , h e does no t concentrat e o n th e visua l arts. Shaftesbury's writing s ar e best studie d i n the early editions o f Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. I used th e editio n publishe d i n London, 1732 . I n spit e o f hi s considerabl e influenc e o n eighteenth century aestheti c thought , particularl y i n Germany , ther e seem s t o b e no comprehensive an d systematic presentatio n o f his views on th e visual 393

Bibliographical Essay arts. A n ol d Germa n dissertation , Gret e Sternberg' s Shaftesburys Aesthetik (Breslau, 191£) , attempts t o d o this , bu t i s onl y a beginning . Interestin g observations ar e found , inte r alia , i n Samue l H . Monk , The Sublime: A Study of Critical Theories in XVI11-Century England (Ne w York , 1935 ; Erns t Cassirer's The Platonic Renaissance in England (Austin , Tex . 19^3 ; original German edition , Leipzi g an d Berlin , 1932 ) deal s wit h th e influenc e o f the "Cambridg e School " o n Shaftesbury , and , thoug h no t focuse d o n problems o f art , ha s muc h t o sa y o n Shaftesbury' s understandin g o f artistic creation . Modern stud y o f Gerar d d e Lairess e attache s les s importanc e t o hi m than di d hi s contemporaries . I n hi s time , Gerar d wa s famou s an d influential. Th e original Dutc h versio n of his great boo k (Groot schilderboek . . .) wa s soo n translate d int o Frenc h a s Le grand livre des peintres ou Tart de la peinture considere dans toutes ses parties, SL demonstre par principes . . . (Paris, 1787 ; reprinte d Geneva , 1972) . A n Englis h translatio n soo n fol lowed an d wen t throug h severa l editions . I n moder n research , h e i s frequently mentioned , bu t usuall y rathe r casually . A thoroug h presen tation o f Gerard' s "system " i s give n b y Geor g Kauffman n i n hi s "Stu dien zum grossen Malerbuch de s Gerard d e Lairesse,"Jahrbuchfiir Asthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 3 (i9££-$7): 1 £3—196. English eighteenth-centur y reflection s o n art , concentratin g o n th e sublime, hav e bee n bette r studied , thoug h primaril y fro m th e literar y side. Fo r a synoptic view , on e doe s bes t t o tur n t o Samue l Monk' s boo k on The Sublime alread y mentioned , especiall y Chapte r IX , "Th e Sublim e in Painting, " an d t o Walte r J . Whipple , The Beautiful, the Sublime and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory (Carbondale, 111. , 1957). Marjori e H . Nicolson , Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory (Ithaca , N.Y., 1959 ) concentrate s mainl y o n th e sublim e i n nature . S o als o doe s her entry , "Th e Sublim e i n Externa l Nature, " i n Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. Phili p Wiene r (Ne w York , 1973) , PP - 333—337 . Ther e ar e good moder n edition s o f a numbe r o f eighteenth-centur y writings . Se e particularly th e editio n o f The Spectator b y Joseph Addiso n (no w Oxford , 196$); and o f Edmun d Burke' s A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful (no w London , 194:8) . Jonathan Rich ardson's An Essay on the Theory of Painting: th e Secon d Edition , "Enlarge d and Corrected " (London , 1 7 2^) i s th e primar y tex t fo r ou r purpose . I t 394

Bibliographical Essay was translate d int o Frenc h an d publishe d a s Jonathan Richardson , Per e et Fils , Traite de la peinture et de la sculpture (Amsterdam , 1728 ; reprinted Geneva, 1972) .

II: BEGINNING S O F TH E NE W AG E The writer s an d artist s discusse d togethe r her e are , as a rule, treate d i n different disciplines , an d th e point s o f contac t betwee n the m ar e there fore see n a s marginal . Thi s explain s wh y Didero t i s onl y occasionall y mentioned i n moder n discussion s o f Winckelmann , whil e man y impor tant studie s o f Diderot' s attitud e t o th e visua l art s manag e t o disregar d Winckelmann altogether . Thi s stat e o f affair s wil l necessaril y b e re flected i n our bibliographical comments . Because ther e i s n o moder n editio n o r translatio n o f Mengs' s texts , the bes t an d fulles t editio n o f hi s writing s i s stil l A. R. Mengs' samtliche hinterlassene Schriften, gesammelt, nach Orginaltexten neu ubersetzt und mit mehreren Beilagen und Anmerkungen vermehrt herausgegeben von Dr. G. Schilling, 2 vols . (Bon n 1843—1844) . I n th e origina l Italian , thes e text s appeare d as Opere di Antonio Rajfaele Mengs, primo pittore del re cattolico Carlo III, publicate del cavaliere D. Giuseppe Niccolla d'Azara e in questa edizione Corrette e aumentate delVavocato Carlo Fea, 2 vols. (Rome , 1787) . The mos t extensiv e discussio n o f th e principle s informin g Mengs' s thought i s foun d i n Monik a Sutter' s dissertation , Die kunsttheoretischen Begriffe des Malerphilosophen Anton Raphael Mengs: Versuch einer Begriffserlauterung im Zusammenhang mit der geistesgeschichtlichen Situation Europas bis hin zu Kant (Munich , 1968) . Th e titl e o f thi s usefu l stud y shoul d no t mislea d us int o expectin g t o find a philosophica l syste m i n Mengs' s writings . Karl Borinski's brief remarks on Mengs (Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, II, pp . 211—215- ) are illuminating , a s i s almos t everythin g h e wrote . On Mengs' s beginning s a s a painter (which ma y also shed som e ligh t o n his theories) , on e learn s fro m K . Gerstenberg , "Di e kiinstlerische n Anfange des Anton Raphael Mengs," Zeitschriftfur Kunstgeschichte 3 (1933): 77-88. Th e relationshi p betwee n Meng s an d Winckelman n wa s alread y seen b y Goeth e a s a subject o f significance , worth y o f carefu l investiga tion. Monik a Sutte r gives a good surve y o f th e proble m i n pp. 216-24 0 39S

Bibliographical Essay of he r dissertation , bu t on e derive s additiona l instructio n fro m Gersten berg's Johann Joachim Winckelmann und Anton Raphael Mengs (27 . Hallische s Winckelmannprogramm) (Hall e a . S. , 1929) . Winckelmann's wor k i s availabl e i n severa l edition s (i n th e origina l German, an d i n par t i n Italian) . I hav e use d Winckelmann's Werke, ed. C. L . Ferno w (Dresden , 1808-1817) , Bu t fo r The History of Ancient Art, I use a moder n edition : J . Winckelmann , Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums (Vienna, 1934) . O f thi s masterpiec e ther e i s a n old , bu t adequate , English translation : The History of Ancient Art, 2 vols. (Boston , i860) . O f the short bu t importan t Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works of Art ther e was n o ful l an d satisfactor y Englis h translation . The literatur e o n Winckelman n i s sizable , th e variou s author s ap proaching thei r subjec t fro m differen t point s o f vie w an d wit h differen t interests i n mind . Th e broa d socia l an d biographica l contex t i s given i n the stil l unsurpasse d classic , Car l Justi' s Winckelmann und seine Zeitgenossen, 3 vols . (Leipzig , 1866 ; £t h ed. , Cologne , 19^6) . Thoug h i t appeare d more tha n a centur y ago , i t i s stil l indispensabl e fo r al l Winckelman n studies. On Winckelmann' s positio n i n th e histor y o f Germa n an d Europea n letters, a subjec t tha t ha s occupie d th e mind s o f scholar s eve r sinc e Herder an d Goethe , on e learn s fro m man y an d ver y differen t works , o f which I shall mentio n onl y a few examples . O n Winckelmann' s positio n in th e traditio n o f moder n humanism , Hors t Rudiger , Wesen und Wandlun^ des Humanismus (Hamburg , 1937 ) i s enlightening . O n hi s positio n in th e histor y o f Germa n literature , th e reade r ma y profi t fro m Walthe r Rehm, Gbtterstille und Gottertrauer (Bern , 1951) , pp . 10 1 —182, thoug h a certain romanti c leanin g o n th e author' s par t ma y inspir e caution . Henry Hatfield , Winckelmann and his German Critics (New York , 1943 ) gives an analyti c surve y o f th e discussion s inspire d b y Winckelmann' s work . Karl Borinski' s observation s (Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, II , pp . 203—22$) ar e agai n illuminating . A n enlightenin g analysi s o f Winckel mann's Germa n styl e an d o f th e significanc e o f hi s languag e fo r broade r issues i s foun d i n Ma x Blackall' s The Emergence of German as a Literary Language IJOO-1JJ5, 2n d ed . (Ithaca , N.Y. , 1978) , pp. 37 1 ff . Winckel mann's styl e o f writin g i n genera l i s analyze d b y Hann a Koch , Johann Joachim Winckelmann: Sprache und Kunstwerk (Berlin , 19^7) . Winckelmann' s 396

Bibliographical Essay role a s th e founde r o f th e specificall y Gree k idea l i n European , an d particularly German , though t an d letter s ha s deservedl y attracte d grea t attention. Th e reviva l o f Gree k paganis m i n his thought receive s a lively discussion fro m Eliz a M . Butle r i n th e Winckelman n chapte r o f he r book The Tyranny of Greece over Germany (Cambridge , 193^) . Henr y Hat field's chapter "Winckelman n an d th e Myt h o f Greece " i n hi s Aesthetic Paganism in German Literature (Cambridge , Mass. , 1964 ) is devoted mainl y to th e "cul t o f beauty " and wha t i s calle d Winckelmann' s "paganism. " In this context , Winckelmann' s conversio n t o Catholicis m ma y becom e a subjec t o f interes t als o fo r th e studen t o f ar t theories . Abou t th e broader implication s o f thi s subjec t on e ca n lear n fro m W . Schultze' s concise study "Winckelmann und die Religion," Archivfiir Kulturgeschichte 34(19^2): 247-260 .

The Neoplatoni c backgroun d o f Winckelmann' s though t ha s fre quently bee n stressed . Fro m a more philosophica l poin t o f view , i t ha s been convincingly argue d by Ernst Cassirer in his book Freiheit und Form: Studien zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte (Berlin , 1916) , pp . 200—218 . I n th e context o f art, this aspect ha s been treated by Rudolf Zeitler, Klassizismus und Utopia (Figura, g) (Stockholm , 19^4) , pp . 19 1 ff . Th e chapte r o n Winckelmann i n Erns t Heidrich , Beitrage zur Geschichte und Methode der Kunstgeschichte (Basel , 1917) , pp. 2 8 ff., an d Wilhelm Waetzoldt , Deutsche Kunsthistoriker, I (Leipzig, 1921) , pp 51-73, remai n instructive an d useful . While th e studen t o f th e theor y o f ar t i s concerne d wit h th e whol e of Winckelmann' s work , h e ca n dea l full y wit h only a rathe r limite d part of Diderot' s oeuvre . Mos t o f th e writing s pertainin g t o ou r subjec t are convenientl y collecte d i n a volum e o f th e Didero t editio n b y Pau l Verniere, Oeuvres esthetiques (Paris , 1968) . Als o usefu l i s th e Englis h translation, b y Dere k Coltman , Diderot's Selected Writings (Ne w Yor k and London, 1966) . Diderot' s review s o f th e great exhibitions , th e "Salons, " are now availabl e in an exemplary edition : Salons, text e etabli et present e par Jean Sezne c e t Jean Adhemar, 4 vols . (Oxford , 1957-1967) . Diderot's attitud e t o th e art s an d hi s activit y a s aestheticia n an d critic o f ar t hav e bee n analyze d fro m differen t point s o f view . Th e volumes o f Diderot Studies naturally contai n man y investigation s tha t belong t o ou r subjec t matter . The backgroun d o f hi s activit y a s a critic is wel l presente d i n th e classi c work , alread y mentione d above , b y 397

Bibliographical Essay Andre Fontaine , Les doctrines d'art en France, especiall y i n th e las t chapte r (Chapter IX) , which deal s wit h th e ne w mediu m o f th e newspaper s an d their rol e i n th e developmen t o f ar t an d th e stud y o f art . Th e develop ment o f Diderot' s though t o n th e art s ha s bee n carefull y trace d b y Jacques Chouille t i n hi s dissertation , La formation des idees esthetiques de Diderot IJ45-IJ63 (Lille , 1973) . Yvo n Belaval' s wor k Vesthetique sans paradoxe de Diderot (Paris , 19^0 ) i s a n importan t contributio n elucidatin g the rathe r obscur e an d hidde n outline s o f Diderot' s aestheti c system , but i t focuse s o n th e theate r an d o n literature , almos t completel y disregarding th e visua l arts . Se e als o th e interestin g discussio n b y H. R . Jauss , "Diderot s Parado x ube r da s Schauspie l (Entretien s su r l e 'Fils natureP), " Germanisch-Romanische Alonatsschrift N . F . 2 (1961): 380— 413. Diderot's activit y a s a criti c o f contemporar y paintin g i s of cours e o f central importanc e fo r ou r subject . O n th e backgroun d an d broa d contexts o f thi s activity , on e learn s a grea t dea l fro m A . Dresdner , Die Entstehung der Kunstkritik im Zusammenhang der Geschichte des Europaischen Kunstlebens (Munich , 1915 ; reprinted Munich , 1968) , a pioneerin g wor k that, togethe r wit h Fontaine' s classic , established th e moder n treatmen t of th e subject . Michae l Fried' s Absorption and Theatricality: Tainting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot (Berkeley , Lo s Angeles , London , 1980 ) ha s made substantia l contribution s t o th e stud y o f Diderot' s criticism . Meyer Schapiro' s article , u Diderot o n th e Artis t an d Society, " i n Diderot Studies c (1964) : c ff , focuse s o n socia l aspect s o f Diderot' s criticism . The variou s studie s b y Herber t Dieckmann , mainl y hi s Cing leqons sur Diderot (Geneva, 19^9) , hav e helpe d t o enlarg e an d deepe n ou r under standing o f Diderot' s criticism . Importan t fo r Diderot' s view s o n wha t optical experience , th e basi s o f pictoria l imitation , ca n achieve , an d o n its limits , i s M . J . Morgan , Molyneuxs Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception (Ne w York , 1977) . Though thi s boo k doe s no t dea l with "criticism " i n th e narro w sens e o f th e term , th e philosophica l discussion o f th e difference s betwee n th e individua l sense s ha s a direc t bearing o n criticis m o f th e visua l arts . Of particula r interes t i s Diderot's attitud e t o th e ar t o f his time , bot h with regar d t o th e genre s o f paintin g an d t o th e wor k o f individua l painters. Relevan t t o th e forme r i s th e articl e b y Jean Seznec , "Didero t 398

Bibliographical Essay and Historica l Painting, " i n E . Wasserman , ed. , Aspects of the Eighteenth Century (Baltimore , 196^) . Fo r th e latter , se e th e interestin g symposiu m Diderot et Greuze, Acte s d u Colloqu e d e Clermont-Ferran d 1 6 novembr e 1984 (Clermont-Ferrand, n . d.) . Sir Joshu a Reynolds' s Discourses hav e bee n frequentl y reprinted . I have used the edition in Everyman's Library : Sir Joshua Reynolds, Fifteen Discourses Delivered In The Royal Academy (Londo n an d Ne w York , n . d.) . About hi s theories , mainl y i n th e contex t o f Italia n an d Frenc h tradi tions, on e learn s fro m Rensselae r Lee , Ut pictura poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting (Ne w York , 1967) , pp. 1 9 ff., 6 2 ff. (originall y a n article in the Art Bulletin).

Ill: UNIT Y AN D DIVERSIT Y O F TH E VISUA L ART S The syste m o f th e art s i n philosophica l reflectio n u p t o Kan t ha s bee n studied an d clearl y surveyed . Here , Pau l O . Kristeller' s articl e "Th e Modern Syste m o f th e Arts " is the best-know n presentation ; frequentl y reprinted, i t i s mos t readil y availabl e i n P . O . Kristeller , Renaissance Thought (Ne w York , 196^) , II , pp . 163-227 . Fo r th e perio d fro m Kan t onwards, however , th e subjec t ha s lost it s attraction . W e d o no t hav e a classic presentatio n o f th e them e i n moder n thought . There are , how ever, a great man y studie s abou t individua l thinker s tha t ar e pertinen t to ou r theme . Lessing's writing s ar e availabl e i n man y edition s an d i n variou s translations. Th e analytica l an d critica l literatur e dealin g wit h Lessing' s attitude t o th e art s i s o f cours e als o rathe r large , thoug h som e o f th e subjects o f particula r interes t fo r ou r purpose hav e no t bee n sufficientl y studied; student s analyzin g Lessing' s aesthetic s hav e naturall y bee n concerned mainl y wit h literature . Fo r th e backgroun d an d origin s o f Lessing's compariso n o f th e arts , one stil l learn s a great dea l fro m Hug o Blumner's Lessings Laokoon (Berlin , 1880) . A recent interpretatio n fro m a modern poin t o f vie w o f th e Laocoon, an d o f th e Germa n philosophica l tradition immediatel y precedin g Lessing , i s bot h instructiv e an d stimu lating: Davi d E . Wellbery , Lessing's Laocoon: Semiotics and Aesthetics in the 399

Bibliographical Essay Age of Reason (Cambridge , 1984) . Henr y Hatfield , i n th e Lessin g chapte r of hi s Aesthetic Paganism in German Literature (pp. 14-32) , focuse s o n Lessing's essa y "Ho w th e Ancient s Represente d Death, " bu t i s mor e concerned wit h genera l cultura l trend s tha n wit h an y reflectio n con cerning th e variet y an d unit y o f th e arts . Kar l Borinski' s brie f remark s on Lessing' s theor y o f illusio n an d expressio n (Die Antike in Poetik un Kunsttheorie, II, pp . 225^-230 ) rais e broa d problems . E . H . Gombrich' s "Lessing," Proceedings of the British Academy 42 (19^7) : 133—15^ 6 (no w reprinted i n Gombrich' s Tributes [Oxford , 1984] ) is a lively discussio n o f Lessing's attitud e t o th e visua l arts . Herder's though t an d impac t hav e o f cours e bee n studied . O f work s in English , w e lear n muc h fro m th e secon d par t o f Isaia h Berlin' s wor k mentioned abov e (Vico and Herder) a s well a s from th e mor e recen t stud y by H. B. Nisbet, Herder and the Philosophy and History of Science (Cambridge, 1970). Fe w student s o f Herde r hav e devote d thei r effort s t o hi s theor y of th e visua l arts . Hi s Plastik i s o f cours e include d i n al l majo r edition s of hi s works , bu t onl y on e seriou s stud y o f wha t i t say s abou t th e foundations o f sculpture, an d b y implicatio n o f painting, i s available: see Bernard Schweitzer , "Herder s 'Plastik ' un d di e Entstehun g de r neuere n Kunstwissenschaft," reprinte d i n Schweitzer' s Zur Kunst der Antike: Ausgewahlte Schriften (Tubingen , 1963) , I, pp. 198—2^2 . Hegel's Vorlesungen uber die Aesthetik ar e now available in a good Englis h translation: se e Hegel , Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, translate d b y T . M . Knox (Oxford , 1975) . A considerabl e literature , ofte n o f a rathe r com plex character , ha s grow n u p aroun d thi s influentia l work . Lukacs' s various Marxis t interpretation s o f Hegel' s though t o n ar t ar e famous . They ar e perhap s bes t summarize d i n hi s comprehensiv e essa y "Hegel s Aesthetik," reprinte d i n Geor g Lukacs , Beitrage zur Aesthetik (Berlin , 19^4), pp . 97-134 . Her e Lukac s i s concerne d mainl y wit h genera l philosophical an d historica l themes , an d deal s onl y marginall y wit h th e arts. I n anothe r essay , "Hegel s Losungsversuch, " i n th e contex t o f Lukacs's discussio n o f "specificity " (Besonderheit) a s th e particula r cate gory o f aesthetics , h e attempt s a n explanatio n o f th e concep t i n th e development o f Germa n idealisti c philosophy . Here , too , th e art s ar e hardly discussed . Se e Geor g Lukacs , Uber die Besonderheit als Kategorie der Aesthetik (Neuwie d an d Berlin , 1967) , pp. 47-92 . A n altogethe r differen t 400

Bibliographical Essay approach inform s th e interestin g presentatio n b y Pete r Szond i i n hi s "Hegels Lehr e von de r Dichtung. " Se e his Poetik und Geschichtsphilosophie I (Frankfurt a m Main , 1974) , pp . 269-^u . Thoug h Szond i i s mainl y concerned wit h poetry , a s hi s titl e indicates , h e als o make s interestin g observations o n th e visua l arts . Jack Kaminsky , Hegel on Art: An Interpretation of Hegel's Aesthetics (Ne w York , 1962 ) is a balanced presentatio n o f HegePs views . Fo r ou r purpose , Chapter s I V an d V I ar e o f particula r importance, bu t i n Hegel' s thought , a s w e know , i t i s ver y difficul t t o consider an y on e subjec t i n isolatio n fro m others . Scholarly investigatio n o f though t o n synaesthesia , especiall y i n th e visual arts , i s bot h limite d an d lackin g i n systemati c approach . Le o Spitzer, Classical and Christian Ideas of World Harmony (Baltimore, 1963 ) is a brilliant discussio n o f a comple x o f idea s tha t i s naturall y linke d wit h our subject , bu t stop s lon g befor e ou r perio d an d doe s no t dea l wit h artistic applicatio n o f synaesthesia . Fo r idea s curren t i n th e Renaissanc e and Baroque , on e learn s a great dea l fro m Alber t Wellek , "Renaissance und Barock-Synaesthesie : Geschicht e de s Doppelempfinden s i m 16 . und 17. Jahrhundert," Deutsche Vierteljahrsschriftfur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 9 (1931): ^34-^84. For the subject i n Romantic literature, se e E. vo n Erhardt-Siebold , "Harmon y o f th e Sense s i n English , Germa n and Frenc h Romanticism, " Publications of the Modern Language Association 47 ( ! 93 2 ) : SJJ~S9 1- A recen t stud y b y Edwar d Lockspeiser , Music and Painting: A Study in Comparative Ideas from Turner to Schoenberg (Ne w York , 1973), focuse s mainl y o n late r stage s o f reflection s o n synaesthesi a tha n those discusse d i n th e presen t volume . I shal l dea l wit h th e idea s o f Delacroi x an d Baudelair e i n th e las t section o f thi s essay .

IV: TH E SYMBO L The literatur e concernin g symbo l an d symbolis m i s enormous . How ever, wit h regar d t o certai n specifi c an d well-define d areas , on e stil l awaits a critical discussion . The lat e eighteent h an d earl y nineteent h centurie s inherite d Renais sance visua l symbolism , treate d i n suc h classic s a s Erwi n Panofsky' s 401

Bibliographical Essay Studies in konology (Ne w York , 1939 ; reprinte d 1962) . Jea n Seznec , The Survival of the Pagan Gods (Ne w York , 19^3 ) gives a broa d an d fascinatin g panorama o f mythologica l symbolism ; E . H . Gombrich , Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London, 1972 ) attempts a psychological interpretation o f Renaissanc e approache s t o mythologie s (se e especiall y "Icones symbolicae") . Of particula r valu e fo r th e perio d discusse d her e i s S . A . Sorensen , Symbol und Symbolismus in den asthetischen Theorien des 18.Jahrhunderts und der deutschen Romantik (Copenhagen, 1963) . Th e clea r an d balance d presen tation o f Tzveta n Todorov , Theories of the Symbol (Ithaca, N.Y. , 1982) , especially Chapte r 6 ("The Romanti c Crisis") , deal s wit h literature , bu t is helpful als o fo r ou r purpose . The author s discusse d i n thi s chapte r hav e bee n treate d ver y un evenly b y moder n scholarship . I n th e rathe r larg e literatur e o n Winck elmann, ther e i s littl e discussio n o f hi s Versuch iiber die Allegorie, no r i s there a translatio n o f th e tex t int o English . Creuzer' s contributio n t o the stud y o f symbolism , o n th e othe r hand , ha s receive d a significant amount o f scholarl y attention . Arnald o Momigliano' s articl e "Friedric h Creuzer an d Gree k Historiography, " Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9 (1946): i p - 1 6 3 , thoug h focusin g o n historiography , i s a good introduction t o ou r author . A recent stud y o f Creuzer' s basi c concepts , as the y emerg e fro m hi s monumenta l work , i s b y Marc-Matthie u Munch, La 'Symbolique' de Friedrich Creuzer (Associatio n de s publication s pres de s universite s d e Strasbourg , fasc . i^g) (Paris , n . d.) . Abbu t th e impact o f Creuzer's Symbolik, on e learn s fro m Erns t Howald' s interestin g collection o f documents, Der Streit urn Creuzers Symbolik (Tubingen , 1926) . See also Todorov's Theories of the Symbol, pp . 21 6 ff. A study o f Creuzer' s writing fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f th e visua l art s (for whic h th e fou r volumes o f th e Symbolik woul d provid e interestin g material ) i s stil l missing. I quot e Creuze r fro m th e first editio n (Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Vb'lker, 1810—1812) . Th e wor k wa s s o successfu l tha t a secon d edition wa s soo n necessary . A decade afte r th e fourt h volum e appeare d in print , a n abridge d edition , containin g onl y som e nin e hundre d pages , was publishe d i n Leipzi g (1822). Bachofen arouse d muc h curiosit y an d als o attracte d scholarl y atten tion. A complet e editio n o f hi s work s (i n th e Germa n original ) i s no w 402

Bibliographical Essay available. The selection i n English, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J. J. Bachqfen, translate d b y R . Mannhei m (Princeton , 1967) , gives a balance d pictur e o f hi s ideas . A n introductor y surve y o f Bacho fen's though t ca n b e foun d i n th e introductio n t o thi s work . C . A . Bernoulli's Johann Jakob Bachofen als Religionsforscher (Leipzig , 1924 ) i s a traditional assessmen t o f Bachofen' s work . Fo r a modern approach , on e may tur n t o Han s Kippenberg' s interestin g introductio n t o hi s recen t selection fro m Bachofen' s works , Mutterrecht und Urreligion (Stuttgart , 1984), pp. ix—lv. Lionell Gossman, Orpheus philologus: Bachofen versus Mommsen on the Study of Antiquity (Transaction s o f th e America n Philosophica l Society, Vol . 73, Part c) (Philadelphia, 1983 ) deals wit h a specific subjec t not directl y pertainin g t o ours ; nevertheless , Gossman' s stud y i s helpfu l also t o th e studen t o f Bachofen' s view s concernin g symboli c imagery . Reflections o n landscap e a s a symboli c form , mainl y b y painter s i n the las t year s o f th e eighteent h an d earl y year s o f th e nineteent h centuries, remaine d fragmentary , althoug h whe n see n together , the y amount t o a significant statement . A recen t collectio n o f studie s edite d by M. Smuda, Landschaft (Frankfur t a m Main, 1986) , though no t precisel y focused o n th e year s discusse d here , ma y b e helpfu l fo r ou r investiga tion. Herber t vo n Einem' s thoughtfu l stud y "Di e Symbollandschaf t de r deutschen Romantik, " bes t availabl e i n the author' s Stil und Uberlieferung: Aufsatze zur Kunstgeschichte des Abendlandes (Diisseldorf , 1971) , pp . 210 — 226, though dealin g with th e painting s themselves , introduces th e reade r to th e thought s an d reflection s o f th e artists . Vo n Einem' s Deutsche Malerei des Klassizismus und der Romantik: lj6o bis 1840 (Munich , 1978 ) is also stimulatin g an d helpfu l i n elucidatin g th e Romantics ' attitude s t o landscape a s a kingdo m o f symbols . C. G . Cams , on e o f th e mos t versatil e figures i n th e intellectua l an d artistic lif e o f hi s time , wa s als o a majo r figure fo r th e subjec t her e considered. Whil e Caru s ha s no t suffered fro m neglec t b y moder n scholars, his view of landscape paintin g a s a form o f symbolic expressio n has no t receive d th e attentio n i t deserves . Som e o f th e monograph s devoted t o Carus' s though t touc h o n th e subjec t o f th e landscap e i n ar t as a symbol , thoug h the y d o s o mainl y fo r wha t thes e view s ma y disclose abou t Carus' s contributio n t o literature . Se e Erwi n Wasche , Carl Gustav Carus und die romantische Weltanschauung (Diisseldorf , 1933) , PP* 403

Bibliographical Essay IOI — I 27, and Berna Kirchner , Carl Gustav Cams: seine 'poetische' Wissenschaft und seine Kunsttheorie, sein Verhahnis zu Goethe und seine Bedeutung fur die Literaturwissenschaft (Bonn , 1962) , pp . 36-43 . Carus' s ow n work , Die Symbolik der menschlichen Gestalt (Leipzig, 19^3) , thoug h no t mentionin g landscape, help s on e t o understan d hi s view s o f ho w rea l form s i n nature, an d i n thei r representatio n b y artists , ca n b e symbolic . Caspar Davi d Friedrich' s significanc e a s a n artist , an d mor e particu larly hi s rol e i n th e histor y o f landscap e painting , ha s no t gon e unno ticed i n moder n scholarship . Hi s written notes , modest t o b e sure , wer e used onl y t o hel p explai n hi s paintings . The y als o contribute , however , to th e Romanti c theor y o f th e symboli c expressio n o f nature . The symbolis m o f colo r i s a time-honore d subject ; i t ha s evoke d interest i n variou s fields o f study , mos t o f the m fa r remove d fro m ar t or eve n fro m aesthetics . Ye t i n spit e o f th e age-ol d interes t i n th e subject, w e stil l d o no t hav e a n authoritativ e surve y o f thi s theme . Individual publication s a t leas t indicat e somethin g o f th e subject' s broa d scope. See , fo r example , Eranos Yearbook 19J2 (Vol . 4 1 o f th e series) , titled The Realms of Colour (Leiden , 1974) , wit h contribution s rangin g from a discussio n o f colo r symbolis m i n Shi'it e cosmolog y o r colo r symbolism i n Blac k Afric a t o a n analysi s o f Orphis m an d optica l art . Philipp Ott o Runge' s extensiv e observation s o n colo r i n general, an d on colo r symbolis m i n particular , ar e scattere d throughou t th e two volume editio n o f Hinterlassene Schnften (Hamburg, 1840-1841 ; reprinted Gottingen, 196^) . Fo r a discussio n o f Runge' s colo r symbolism , se e Rudolf M . Bisanz , German Romanticism and Philipp Otto Runge: A Study in Nineteenth Century Art Theory and Iconography (D e Kalb , 111. , 1970) , pp. 86-96 . Goethe's Farbenlehre [Colo r Theory] , i n th e origina l German , i s available i n severa l editions . Se e als o th e well-know n Englis h translation , Goethe's Theory of Colour, translated fromthe German with notes by Charles Lock Eastlake (London, 1840) . Mos t moder n discussion s o f Goethe' s colo r theory concentrat e o n hi s disput e wit h Newto n an d o n th e scientifi c validity (o r lac k o f validity ) o f th e poet' s theory ; th e interestin g secto r on colo r symbolis m i s not give n sufficien t attention .

404

Bibliographical Essay

V: TH E ARTIS T Modern scholarshi p ha s bee n fascinate d b y th e concep t o f th e artis t (especially a s "genius") , particularl y a s tha t concep t emerge d i n th e eighteenth an d earl y nineteent h centuries . Fro m th e larg e volum e o f literature I shall mentio n onl y a few genera l works . A concise introduc tion i s Rudol f Wittkower' s entr y "Genius : Individualis m i n Ar t an d Artists," Dictionary of the History of Ideas, II (Ne w York , 1973) , pp . 297 — 312, esp . sectio n iv . M . H . Abrams , The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (Oxford , 19^3 ) approache s th e proble m mainly fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f th e literar y critic . Edga r Zilsel , Die Geniereligion: Ein kritischer Versuch iiber das moderne Personlichkeitsideal (Vienna, 1918) draw s mainl y socia l perspectives . (ZilseP s late r work , Die Entstehung des Geniebegriffs [Tubingen , 1926] , is still a classic , bu t scarcel y goe s beyond th e Renaissance. ) Recently , Jame s Engel l ha s abl y surveye d th e views concernin g th e creativ e imaginatio n a s the y develope d amon g literary men , wit h a n emphasi s o n Englis h culture . Se e hi s The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism (Cambridge , Mass. , 1981) . For Willia m Duff , whos e Essay was reprinte d i n 1964 , se e mainl y Engell, pp . 6 4 ff . M . H . Abrams , The Mirror and the Lamp, pp . 8 8 ff. , throws ligh t o n a n interestin g aspec t o f Sulzer' s reflectio n o n art . Wackenroder ha s elicite d a considerabl e amoun t o f commen t an d investigation. Mar y H . Schubert' s introductio n t o th e Englis h editio n o f Wackenroder's Confessions and Fantasies (Universit y Park , Pa. , 1971 ) i s informative an d balanced . Mariann e Frey' s stud y Der Kunstler und sein Werk bei W. H. Wackenroder und E. T A. Hoffmann: Vergleichende Studien zur romantischen Kunstanschauung (Bern , 1970 ) attempt s a genera l outlin e o f what Romanticis m though t abou t th e artist' s natur e an d th e proces s o f creation. Hein z Lippuner , Wackenroder, Tieck und die bildende Kunst (Dresden, 1934 ) attempts t o focu s o n th e visua l arts . Fo r Solger , se e th e brie f but clea r summar y b y Tsveta n Todorov , Theories of the Symbol, pp . 218— 221. Se e als o H . Mainusch , Romantische Asthetik (Zurich, i960) , pp. 6 7 ff . On a specific subject , bu t centra l fo r Solger , on e ca n lear n fro m a pape r by Wolfgan g Heckmann , "Symbo l un d Allegori e b y K . W . F . Solger, "

4°S

Bibliographical Essay Romantik in Deutschland: Ein interdisziplinares Symposium, ed . R . Brinkman n (Stuttgart, 1978) . The studen t o f ar t theor y concerne d wit h Rung e will , i n th e presen t context (i n additio n t o wha t wa s mentione d i n th e not e t o Chapte r 4) , derive instructio n fro m J . B . C . Grundy , Tieck and Runge: A Study in the Relationship of Literature and Art in the Romantic Period (Strasbourg , 1930) , and W . Roch , Philipp Otto Runges Kunstanschauung (Strasbourg , 1909) . A concise presentatio n o f Runge' s colo r theor y ca n b e foun d i n th e recen t work b y Loren z Dittmann , Farbgestaltung und Farbtheorie in der abendldndischen Malerei (Darmstadt , 1987) , pp. 33 0 ff . Hyppolite Taine' s wor k o n th e visua l art s i s now availabl e i n a reprin t of th e 188 9 Englis h translation : Philosophy of Art (Ne w York , 1971) . Students o f ar t theor y an d o f th e histor y o f ar t hav e pai d onl y scan t attention t o hi s work , bu t w e ca n lear n muc h abou t Taine' s approac h and th e problem s tha t concerne d hi m fro m th e chapte r i n Ren e Wel lek's A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950, IV , The Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge , 1983) , pp. 27-57 . The concep t o f realis m i s on e o f th e mos t comple x notion s i n th e critical vocabulary . Use s o f u The Concep t o f Realis m i n Literar y Schol arship'' hav e bee n trace d b y Ren e Welle k i n hi s Concepts of Criticism (New Have n an d London , 1963) , pp . 222—2££ . Essentia l fo r an y stud y of th e debat e ove r realis m i n mid-nineteenth-centur y ar t an d literature , especially i n France , i s Emil e Bouvier , La bataille realiste (Paris, 1913 ; reprinted Geneva , 1973) . Lind a Nochlin' s Realism (Pengui n Books , 1971 ) deals wit h paintin g rathe r tha n wit h theoretica l reflection , bu t i t als o lays ou t th e groun d fo r a stud y o f th e latter . A smal l bu t goo d selectio n o f Proudhon' s writing s o n ar t i s availabl e in Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, ed . Stewar t Edwards , trans lated b y Elizabet h Fraze r (Garde n City , N . Y. , 1969) , pp. 21 4 ff. Eugen e Fromentin's classi c work , th e Maitres d'autrefois, i s available i n a n Englis h translation, wit h a n introductio n b y Meyer Schapiro . Se e The Old Masters of Belgium and Holland, translate d b y M . C . Robbin s (Ne w York , 1963) . On Fromentin , se e als o Arthur Evans , The Literary Art of Eugene Fromentin (Baltimore, 1964) , an d Emanue l Mickel , Jr. , Eugene Fromentin (Boston, 1981).

Delacroix's writing s ar e easil y accessible . O f particula r importanc e i s 406

Bibliographical Essay Correspondence generate d'Eugene Delacroix, ed . Andr e Joubin, c vols. (Paris, 1936-1938). Fo r a n Englis h translatio n o f considerable , an d well-se lected, parts , se e Delacroix: Selected Letters, 1813-1863, selecte d an d translated b y Jea n Stewar t (London , 1971) , an d The Journal of Eugene Delacroix, translate d b y Walter Pac h (New York , 1972) . Delacroix's view s on paintin g an d o n th e artist' s tas k hav e bee n abl y presente d i n a systematic fashion , an d wit h reference s t o th e traditiona l Italia n theor y of art, b y Georg e Mras , Eugene Delacroix's Theory of Art (Princeton, 1966) . Baudelaire's writing s o n paintin g hav e bee n publishe d frequently . A good editio n i s Baudelaire, Curiosites esthetiques, Van romantique, ed . Henr i Lemaitre (Paris , 1962) . I n Englis h translation , the y ar e availabl e i n tw o good selections : Charle s Baudelaire , The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, translate d b y Jonatha n Mayn e (London , 1964) ; an d Art in Paris 1845-1862: Salons and other Exhibitions, translate d b y Jonatha n Mayn e (Oxford, 196^) . I n moder n critica l literature , Baudelaire' s wor k a s a critic o f ar t ha s bee n assesse d severa l times . Margare t Gilman , Baudelaire the Critic (Ne w York , 1943 ) is a n importan t contributio n t o ou r subject . Gita May' s Diderot et Baudelaire: Critiques d'art (Geneva, 19^7 ) attempts t o place Baudelair e i n th e historica l contex t o f th e critica l traditio n i n France. Walte r Benjamin' s stud y o f Baudelaire , Charles Baudelaire: Ein Lyriker im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus (Frankfur t a m Main , 1969) , thoug h not primaril y concerne d wit h criticism , make s a n interestin g contribu tion t o th e understandin g o f hi s wor k a s a moder n critic . Th e chapte r on Baudelair e i n th e fourt h volum e o f Wellek' s A History of Modern Criticism 1750-1950, th e volum e on The Later Nineteenth Century, pp . 4344£2, i s a clea r an d erudit e presentatio n o f a comple x bu t fascinatin g subject.

407

Name Inde x

Abrams, M . H. , 9 , 40 5 Addison, Joseph , 46 , 7 7 ff . Alberti, Leon e Battista , 21 , 39 , 58 , 62 , 94, 31 8 Alciati, Andrea , 22 4 ff . Auerbach, Erich , 39 3 Augustine, Saint , "creatur e canno t cre ate," 13 0

on music , 21 2 music an d painting , 21 3 ff . "philosophic art, " 36 4 on photography , 36 7 principles o f hi s ar t theory , 363-37 3 on proces s o f creation , 373—37 6 "pure art, " 36 4 rejects realism , 36 6 ff . on sculpture , 21 4 ff . on skil l an d technique , 37 4 theory o f imitation , 36 6 on th e ugl y i n painting , 38 0 on Wagner , 21 1 writings o n art , 362-36 3 Baumgarten, Alexande r Gottlieb , 2 , 8 f. , 90, 17 9 Bayle, Pierre , 35 , 3 6 Bellori, Giovann i Pietro , 12 3 Berenson, Bernard , 20 8 Berlin, Isaiah , 9 f . Bernard o f Clairvaux , 313 , 37 8 Bernini, Gia n Lorenzo , 96 , 11 1 artist o f subjectivis m (Winckelmann) , 100 criticized b y Winckelmann , 9 9

Bachofen, Johan n Jakob , 238—24 5 on meanin g o f rop e plaiting , 24 2 Baldinucci, Filippo , 44 , 35 5 ff . quoted b y Winckelmann , 10 0 Batteaux, C , 29 0 Baudelaire, Charle s "art fo r art, " 36 3 ff . on artist' s productivity , 36 8 audience o f sculpture , 21 6 color, 21 1 ff . on "correspondences, " 37 1 ((. on Delacroix , 35 1 on Goya' s monsters , 38 2 on imagination , 36 7 ff . on inspiration , 37 3 ff . on laughter , 38 0 409

Name Index Bocchi, Francesco , 12 3 Boehme, Jakob , 30 0 Boileau, D . N. , translate d Longinus , 7 7 Bon vain, Francois , 33 8 Borinski, Karl , 392 , 395 , 40 0 Boudard, Jean-Baptiste , 22 8 Bruno, Giordano , 38 , 3 9 attacks rules , 12 9 Burke, Edmund , 7 4 Butler, E . M. , 9 7

Crow, Catherine , quote d b y Baudelaire , 368 Curtius, Erns t Robert , 106 , 10 8

Carracci, Annibale , 9 3 Carus, Car l Gustav , 252-259 , 318 , 403 ff . Cassirer, Ernst , 39 1 ff. , 394 , 39 7 Castel, Loui s Betrand , 20 3 Castiglione, Baldassare , 29 9 Caylus, Count , 16 3 Cellini, Benvenuto , 21 5 Chambray, Frear t de , 13 7 Champfleury, 330 , 334-343 , 38 0 coined th e ter m "realism, " 33 4 on Corot , 33 8 on Courbet , 33 9 on Courbet' s Burial in Ornans, 340 ff . on "th e Greek s o f David, " 33 6 on modesty , 33 9 ff . on Raphael , 33 7 on sobriety , 33 8 Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Simeon , 131 , 33 5 Chevreul, Miche l Eugene , 201-206 , 267, 27 7 Christ, J . F. , 5 1 Condillac, E . B. , 32 4 Corot, Jean-Baptiste-Camille , discusse d by Champfleury , 33 8 Correggio, 9 4 Cosimo, Pier o di , 29 8 Courbet, Gustave , 33 3 ff . praised b y Champfleury , 33 9 Cousin, Victor , 36 4 ff . Creuzer, Friedrich , 183 , 233-23 8 influenced b y Neoplatonism , 23 3 ff . Croce, Benedetto , 39 3 410

Daguerre, Louis , 36 7 Delacroix, Eugene , 206-210 , 34 7 ff. , 348-361 Baudelaire on , 35 1 and Champfleury , 33 5 and Chopin , 20 7 f . on color , 359-36 1 concerned wit h music , 20 6 ff . on imagination , 351-35 4 interest i n photography , 35 3 on Mozart , 20 7 on sketch , 354-35 9 Demetrios, 23 4 Dezaillier d'Argensville , A . J . on attributio n o f pictures , 5 1 ff . on Rembrandt , 5 2 Diderot, Denis , 4 , 122-13 2 color give s life , 36 0 on Davi d Garrick , 13 0 on Greeks , 10 3 on Michelangelo , 13 0 on patronage , 12 8 praises sketch , 35 7 ff . on sketch , 12 7 Dilthey, Wilhelm , 1 5 Dubos, Jean-Baptiste , 16-36 , 15 3 ff . on allegory , 3 3 art an d entertainment , 2 2 on artificia l passions , 2 1 on artist' s medium , 3 3 on avoidin g boredom , 2 0 compares paintin g an d poeiry , 2 8 concerned wit h individua l arts , 1 9 "copy," 2 5 and humanisti c tradition , 1 8 on illusio n i n painting , 2 6 information i n pictures , 2 9 on Lebrun , 2 2 natural signs , 3 1 the powe r o f painting , 3 0

Name Index on pleasur e an d need , 2 0 on Poussin' s Death of Germanicus, 29 psychology o f art , 2 5 "quasi-reality," 2 6 Raphael's Expulsion of Attila, 2 7 rejection o f trompe Voeil, 27 ii. on signs , 3 0 fi. and subject s o f ar t theory , 2 0 on theater , 2 7 and transitiona l period , 1 8 Duff, William , 285-28 9 Duranty, Edmond , 33 0 Durer, Albrecht , 261 , 286 , 293 , 294 , 296, 30 0 Einem, Herber t von , 40 3 Engell, James , 40 5 Engels, Friedrich , 23 9 Felibien, Andre , 28 , 63 , 6 5 Fernow, Kar l Ludwig , 24 9 Ficino, Marsiglio , 1 3 Flaxman, John , 26 5 Fludd, Robert , 20 1 Fontaine, Andre , 392 , 39 8 Fresnoy, Charle s du , 15 0 Friedrich, Caspa r David , 259-262 , 277 , 317-319 on nature , 31 8 Fromentin, Eugene , 343-34 7 Fuseli, Henry , 30 9 ff . Galilei, Vincenzo , 20 1 Garrick, David , 132 , 13 6 discussed b y Diderot , 13 0 Gautier, Theophile , 37 2 ff . Gellius, Aulus , 10 6 Gessner, Salomon , 24 7 ff . Goethe, Johan n Wolfgang , 270-27 4 concern wit h color , 27 0 ff . on Sulzer , 29 3 and Vico , 8 Gombrich, Ernst , 162 , 178 , 40 0

Gossman, Lionell , 40 3 Goya, Baudelaire' s respons e to , 38 1 Grass, Carl , 25 1 Greene, Thomas , 11 1 Greuze, Jean-Baptiste , 13 1 Grez, Dupu y de , 36 1 Grimm, Friedrich , 12 6 Hackert, Philipp , 25 1 Hamann, J . G. , 166 , 29 9 Heckscher, William , 27 3 Hegel, G . W . F. , 92 , 178-199 , 264 , 323 art forms , 18 2 beauty, 18 2 f . Christian art , 19 0 classical ar t form , 187-18 9 on color , 19 7 on Dutc h painting , 6 6 the ey e i n Gree k sculpture , 19 5 human figure i n Egyptia n art , 18 6 on ideal , 18 2 on painting , 196-19 9 on th e Passio n o f Christ , 19 1 on Guid o Reni , 19 8 on sculpture , 19 3 ff . on sign , 18 1 ff . on sphinx , 18 7 statue o f Memnon , 18 7 symbol, 18 1 symbolic ar t form , 184-18 7 Heine, Heinrich , o n Delacroix , 37 0 Herder, Johan n Gottfried , 97 , 165-17 1 interest i n Orienta l art , 18 3 on sculpture , 17 0 "species o f beauty, " 17 0 vision an d touch , 16 7 ff . Hippie, John , Jr. , 7 7 f . Hoffmann, E . T . A. , 21 1 Homer, 16 0 Hugo, Victo r on th e ugly , 37 8 ff . Ingres, J . A . D. , 33 6 411

Name Index Maistre, Joseph , 37 7 Manuel, Frank , 39 2 Mendelssohn, Moses , 30 2 Mengs, Anto n Raphael , 9 0 - 9 6 , 292 on primeva l styles , 9 1 ff . Michelangelo, 9 3 Diderot on , 13 0 Flaxman on , 26 5 Piles, Roge r de , on , 13 8 Reynolds on , 13 8 Taine on , 32 6 Momigliano, Arnaldo , 44 , 40 2 Monk, Samuel , 77 , 39 4 Montfaucon, Bernar d de , 1 2 ff . Morelli, Giovanni , 4 9 Moritz, Kar l Philip , 29 7 Mozart, Delacroi x on , 20 7 Mras, George , 35 3

Janson, H . W. , 35 6 Jauss, Han s Robert , 37 8 Justi, Karl , 90 , 39 6 Kant, Immanuel , 24 , 43 , 15 7 influenced b y Shaftesbury , 3 7 Kippenberg, Hans , 40 3 Kircher, Athanasius , 1 2 Kleist, Heinrich , 26 0 Kristeller, P . O. , 39 9 Lactance, 1 1 Lairesse, Gerar d de , 5 5 ft, 57-73 , 122 , 274 on genre s o f painting , 6 0 ff . Grand livre, 5 7 ff . hierarchy o f genres , 6 5 individual genres , 6 7 ff . on "kind s o f painting, " 6 3 ff . landscape painting , 6 4 ft. and mythographi c tradition , 6 4 on ruins , 6 8 on stil l life , 6 5 types o f stil l life , 7 1 Lebrun, Charles , 2 2 Le Nain , Antoine , 33 5 Leonardo d a Vinci , 203 , 29 1 color observations , 26 8 comparison o f th e arts , 16 8 ff . on paintin g an d sculpture , 16 9 ff . Lessing, Gotthol d Ephraim , 28 , 149 — 164 on aestheti c experience , 156 the beholder , 15 6 "material confines " o f arts , 16 1 painting an d poetry , 15 7 on signs , 15 3 ff . on space , 15 7 on time , 15 7 on wor k o f art , 15 5 Lomazzo, Giovann i Paolo , 67 , 14 9 Longinus, 76 , 128 , 14 0 Lovejoy, Arthu r O. , 39 2 Lukacs, Georg , 40 0

Newton, Isaac , 27 0 Nicolson, Marjorie , 42 , 82 , 39 4 Panofsky, Erwin , 78 , 40 1 ff . Pascal, B. , 12 4 Pevsner, Nicolas , 5 4 Piles, Roge r de , 4 7 ff , 129 , 15 3 ff . on Michelangelo , 13 8 on school s o f painting , 4 9 f . on th e sublime , 7 6 Piranesi, Giovann i Battista , 10 1 ft. Plotinus influenced Creuzer , 23 7 Plutarch, quote d b y Bachofen , 24 4 Poe, Edga r Alla n Baudelaire on , 36 2 Delacroix on , 35 3 Poussin, Nicolas , 63 , 20 1 on "aim " o f painting , 2 3 letter o n modes , 6 1 on novelt y i n painting , 3 9 f . Proudhon, Pierr e Joseph , 330-33 4 advocates realism , 33 3 and Courbet , 33 1 ff .

4

I2

Name Index on landscap e painting , 24 7 on symbolism , 30 7 Schiller, Friedrich , 29 7 ff . Schlegel, Augus t Wilhelm , 173-178 , 246 ff., 32 6 on form , 17 5 ff . painting an d sculpture , 17 5 Schlegel, Friedrich , 18 3 Seznec, Jean , 63 , 39 8 f . Shaftesbury, Anto n Ashle y Cooper , 16 f., 3 6 - 4 3 , 7 8 artist's freedom , 3 9 on creativ e artist , 3 8 on enthusiasm , 4 2 on genius , 3 8 harmony, 3 7 on originality , 3 8 f . on Prometheus , 4 0 Solger, K . F . W. , 305-30 8 on imagination , 30 6 symbol, 30 7 Sorensen, Beng t Algot , 227 , 40 2 Spanheim, Ezechiel , 4 5 Spence, Joseph , 16 4 Spitzer, Leo , 38 , 40 1 Spon, Jacques , 4 5 Sulzer, J . G. , 24 8 ff. , 289-293 , 29 8 ff . Sutter, Monika , 39 5 Swedenborg, Emanuel , 211 , 37 1 ff . Baudelaire's source , 37 2 Szondi, Peter , 40 1

Quintilian, 25 , 4 5 on powe r o f th e eye , 3 2 Raphael Santi , 9 2 f. , 296 , 29 8 ff. , 29 9 ff . Champfleury on , 33 7 Dubos on , 2 7 ff . Reynolds on , 13 7 Rehm, Walter , 10 4 Rembrandt, H. , 33 5 Richardson on , 8 1 Hundred Guilder Print, 8 1 St. Peter's Prayer before the Raising of Tabitha, 8 1

Reni, Guido , 93 , 23 1 Hegel on , 19 8 Reynolds, Si r Joshua , 132-140 , 15 0 on "borrowing, " 13 4 copying, 13 4 on "greatness,' * 13 9 imagination, 13 4 "originality," 13 8 ff . on poetry , 13 6 theater, 13 6 Richardson, Jonathan , 5 0 ff., 5 5 ff., 7 3 83 on brushstrokes , 8 0 on connoisseurship , 5 0 on Rembrandt , 8 1 on Zuccari' s Annunciation, 8 1 Richter, A . L. , 274-27 8 Riegl, Alois , 20 8 Ripa, Cesare , 224 , 228 , 230 , 25 7 Rosenkranz, Karl , 37 6 ff., 37 9 ff . Rubens, P . P. , discusse d b y Fromentin , 344 Runge, Philip p Otto , 267-269 , 3 1 0 317 on ancien t Greeks , 31 1 light an d color , 31 4 Ruysdael, discusse d b y Fromentin , 346

Taine, Hippolyte , 320-32 9 against prescriptiv e thought , 32 1 ff . on artist , 32 4 ff . Dutch painting , 32 8 education o f th e eye , 32 8 Greeks, 32 7 ff . "milieu," 32 5 ff . Tertullian, 2 1 Testelin, Henry , 6 1 f .

Schapiro, Meyer , 23 , 69 , 128 , 34 3 ff . Schelling, F . W . J. , 253 , 31 8 ff. , 32 6 f .

Valeriano, Pierio , 13 , 22 8 Vasari, Giorgio , 17 7

413

Name Index Veronese, Paolo , 33 5 Vico, Giambattista , 7 - 1 4 , 10 1 creative imagination , 1 5 f . on empathy , 1 6 hieroglyphs, 1 2 on image , 1 0 ff . images o f gods , 1 1 on language , 9 on metaphor , 9 on myths , 1 1 f . "poetics," 8 primeval creation , 1 5 f . on signs , 9 on spectator , 1 5 on symbolism , 1 3 ff . on understanding , 1 5 on visua l experience , 1 4 f. Viollet-le-Duc, E . E. , 213 , 38 0 Vischer, Friedric h Theodor , 262-26 5 Wackenroder, 293-304 , 34 1 his style , 29 3 ff . Wagner, Richar d Baudelaire on , 211 , 36 3 Walzel, Oskar , 4 0

Warburg, Aby , 26 2 Wellbery, Davi d E. , 39 9 f . Wellek, Albert , 40 1 Wellek, Rene , 325 , 32 6 ff, 370 , 406 ff . Winckelmann, Johan n Joachim , 2 , 90 , 9 7 - 1 2 1 , 226-231 , 26 6 on allegory , 226-23 1 on ancien t artist , 11 8 and th e ar t o f hi s time , 98-10 5 and Baldinucci , 10 0 on copying , 11 2 criticism o f Bernini , 9 9 and Germa n pietism , 11 5 f . on "origin, " 10 7 ff . "paganism" of , 10 3 on science , 10 4 f . on tranquility , 11 5 Utopian trend , 11 3 Wittkower, Rudolf , 40 5 Woelfflin, Heinrich , 170 , 29 5 Wollheim, Richard , 4 9 Zilsel, Edgar , 40 5 Zuccari, Federico , 8 1

414

Subject Inde x

Academy o f Art , 5 4 ff, 12 8 Aesthetic experience , Lessin g on , 15 6 "Aesthetics," origi n o f term , 14 7 "Aesthetics o f content " (Winckelmann) , 226 "Aesthetics o f th e Infinite " (M . Nicol son), 42 , 8 2 "Age o f Egypt " (Hegel) , 18 6 Allegorical compositions , Dubo s on , 3 4 Allegorical figures, Dubo s on , 3 4 Allegory, define d b y Dubos , 3 3 defined b y Winckelmann , 22 7 "invented" b y Egyptians , 22 8 Solger on , 30 7 ff . Amateur, 12 9 "Ancient marbles " (Spanheim) , 4 5 Antiquarians, 4 3 - 5 2 role i n ar t theory , 6 study individua l objects , 4 5 Apollo Belvedere, 92 , 10 9 Apotheosis of Homer (Ingres), 33 6 "Archaic," Schlege l on , 17 7 Archaic age , attitud e toward , 17 7 Archetypal characte r o f classica l ar t (Winckelmann), 10 8

"Archetypes" (Jung) , 24 3 Architecture, Hege l on , 19 2 ff . Aristotle's Poetics, 96 Art, Christia n (Hegel) , 190ff . Art, educativ e functio n o f (Proudhon) , 332 f . Art an d entertainmen t (Dubos) , 2 2 Art an d religion , 30 6 ff . Hegel on , 18 0 "Art a s such, " 14 6 ff . Art criticism , 12 2 ff . and ar t theory , 12 2 ff . "Art fo r art' s sake, " 36 4 f . Art forms , Hege l on , 18 2 ff . Artist, 284-39 0 ancient (Winckelmann) , 11 9 conflict wit h audience , 29 3 creative, Shaftesbur y on , 3 8 his productivit y (Baudelaire) , 31 8 role i n ar t theory , 6 "Art o f th e Louvre " (Champfleury) , 33 5 "Art philosophique " (Baudelaire) , 36 4 Arts, diversit y of , 146-22 3 Arts, divisio n of , 32 1 justification of , 2 2 f .

4*£

Subject Index Arts, divisio n of (continued) system of , 146-22 3 unity of , 146-22 3 "Autonomous fragment " (H . W . Jan son), 35 6

Connoisseurship (Roge r d e Piles) , 4 8 and ar t theory , 5 0 Contemplation o f ideas , 1 4 "Copy" (Dubos) , 2 5 "Copying" (Reynolds) , 13 4 Winckelmann on , 11 2 "Correspondances," poe m b y Baude laire, 21 0 "Correspondences," Baudelair e on , 371 ff . Courbet's Burial in Ornans, Champfleur y on, 34 0 ff . Stonebreakers, The, Champfleury on , 339 Creatio ex nihilo, 40 , 289 , 351 , 353 , 36 8 Creation, artistic , 29 6 primeval (Vico) , 1 5 f . process o f (Baudelaire) , 37 3 ff . Creative process , 29 7

Baroque art , criticize d b y Winckelmann , 100 "Beautiful style " (Mengs) , 9 3 Beauty (Beau), Didero t on , 12 7 and expression , 11 7 in landscap e painting , 25 7 ff . species o f (Herder) , 17 0 u Beaux arts, " 14 7 ff . Beholder, 16 0 ff . in Lessing' s thought , 15 6 Boredom, 2 0 "Borrowing" (Reynolds) , 13 4 Brushstrokes, Richardso n on , 8 0 types o f (Lairesse) , 5 8 ff .

Darkness, 23 5 Runge on , 31 5 Decoro e gravita (Piranesi) , 10 1 f . Delectation, 23 Dexterity, manual , 30 1 "Disinterested pleasure " (Kant) , 24 , 4 3 "Double relationship " (Chevreul) , 20 2 Dream, 300 , 36 8 Dutch painting , 33 4 assessed b y Meng s an d Winckelmann , 96 Fromentin on , 33 4 f . specialization i n 17t h century , 6 6 Taine on , 32 8

Canon, 10 8 Ceiling painting , 6 7 ff . "Classical," Schlege l on , 177 Classical, Winckelman n di d no t us e th e term, 10 6 Classical ar t for m (Hegel) , 187-18 9 Classicism, revol t against , 36 5 Color, Baudelair e on , 21 1 ff . Delacroix on , 359-36 1 embodies sensua l experienc e (Winck elmann), 12 1 gives lif e (Plutarch) , 36 0 and line , 36 0 Runge on , 31 4 and sounds , 27 8 specific o f paintin g (Hegel) , 19 6 ff . Color outlines , 26 0 Color scal e (Runge) , 31 6 Color sketch , 27 5 Color spher e (Runge) , 26 8 Color symbolism , 265-278 , 315 , 40 4 Comparison o f th e art s (Leonardo) , 16 8 Connoisseurs, 4 3 - 5 2

4

Ebauche, 35 5 Egyptian religion , Montfauco n on , 1 3 Ekphrasis, 8 2 Emblem, 16 2 Goethe on , 27 3 Emblematics, 22 4 ff. Emotions, Didero t o n expressio n of , 13 0 Dubos o n purgatio n of , 2 5 ff . Empathy (Vico) , 1 6 i6

Subject Index Hierarchy, o f th e arts , 21 6 ff . of genres , 6 5 of pictoria l genres , 28 8 f . "Hieroglyph" (Bachofen) , 24 2 Hieroglyphs, 37 1 Creuzer on , 23 7 manifest ideas , 1 4 in Romanticism , 30 4 Vico on , 1 2 Horatian traditio n i n poetics , 32 , 375 Human figure, i n Egyptia n ar t (Hegel) , 186 subject matte r o f sculptur e (Hegel) , 194ff.

Encyclopedic 126 England, ar t theor y in , 7 4 English garden , 78 , 13 7 Enthusiasm, 30 1 Shaftesbury on , 4 2 Esquisse, 35 5 Expression, Didero t on , 13 0 and beaut y (Winckelmann) , 11 7 Eye, i n Gree k statue s (Hegel) , 19 5 education o f (Taine) , 32 8 ff . Facts (Taine) , 32 1 "Fine Arts, " 14 7 ff . Finish i n painting , rejecte d b y Dela croix, 35 9 Flower painting , Lairess e on , 6 8 Flowers, symbolis m o f (Lairesse) , 7 2 Form, Winckelman n on , 12 0 "mathematical," Schlege l on , 17 5 f . "organic," Schlege l on , 17 5 f . Freedom o f artist , Shaftesbur y on , 3 9

Iconology, 22 4 ff . Ideal, 113 , 29 2 Hegel on , 18 2 Winckelmann on , 118-12 1 Ideal beauty , 117ff . "Idealisch," 11 3 Illusion, create d b y arts , 15 1 in paintin g (Dubos) , 2 6 Renaissance view s of , 2 6 Image, Vic o on , lOff . Images o f gods , Vic o on , 1 1 Imagination Bachofen on , 24 0 Baudelaire on , 36 7 ff . Champfleury on , 34 2 Delacroix on , 351-35 4 Duff on , 28 6 Solger on , 30 6 ff . Vico on , 1 5 f . Imitation, o f Gree k models , difficult y of , 105 of literar y an d artisti c models , 11 0 of nature , 11 0 in Renaissanc e thought , 11 0 Reynolds on , 134 , 13 7 theory o f art , 29 0 two kind s of , 13 4 Winckelmann on , 109-11 3

Gemiit, 95, 24 8 Genius, 29 2 Duff on , 28 5 ff . Shaftesbury on , 3 8 Taine on , 32 7 Genres, pictorial , 28 8 f . Genres o f painting , foundin g of , 6 2 hierarchy of , 6 5 Lairesse on , 6 0 Gesamtkunstwerk, 20 1 God a s craftsman , 3 8 Grace, 9 4 Gracefulness, Meng s on , 9 4 "Greatness," Reynold s o n Miche langelo's, 13 9 Greek culture , aestheti c aspec t of , 10 4 Greek paradigm , i n Winckelmann' s thought, 10 2 ff . "Haptic" experience s (Riegl) , 20 8 Harmony, Shaftesbur y on , 3 7 Harmony o f th e spheres , 20 1 417

Subject Index "Inner" an d "outer, " Romanti c distinc tion of , 30 1 ff . Innerlichkeit, 19 1 "Innermost consciousness " (Friedrich) , 317 Inspiration, Baudelaire' s distrus t of , 373 ff . Intuition, Creuze r on , 23 5 Invenzione, 39 Inwardness, 19 1 f . Istoria (Alberti), 62 , 11 7

Hypolidian, 6 1 Phrygian, 6 1 "Model," 12 8 Morality, o f art , 1 26 ff. criterion o f judgment , 13 1 Mountain, i n landscap e paintin g (Lai resse), 6 4 Music, Baudelair e on , 21 1 ff . Delacroix concerne d with , 20 6 f . and painting , 21 3 ff . Musical instruments , i n stil l life , 7 2 Mythographic tradition , 6 4 Myths, Vic o on , 1 1

Judgment o n work s o f art , 12 5

"Natural history, " concep t of , 17 3 f . Natura naturans, natura naturata, 29 0 Nature, 29 0 Friedrich on , 31 8 symbol, 24 3 Neoplatonic influence , o n Carus , 25 2 on Goethe , 27 1 "Noble," Winckelmann' s concep t of , 118 Nonjinito, concep t of , 35 6 "Novel o f th e artist, " th e literar y genre , 293

"Kallistics," 17 9 "Kinds o f painting, " Lairess e on , 6 3 ff . Landscape, 245-27 8 Landscape painting , produce s moods , 249, 25 1 Lairesse on , 6 4 subtypes of , 6 6 two type s of , 24 9 ff . Language, Vic o on , 9 of ar t (Wackenroder) , 30 4 symbolic, 1 4 Laocobn, Winckelmann on , 10 9 Lessing's, 15 1 ff . Van pour l'art, 37 9 Laughter, Baudelair e on , 38 0 Life cycle , 25 5 Light, Rung e on , 31 4 ff. Lizard Killer, Winckelmann on , 10 9 "Logic o f th e body " (Taine) , 32 3

"Obedience" t o example s (Reynolds) , 133 Objects, meanin g of , 25 7 Occult theor y (Baudelaire) , 21 1 Origin, concep t o f (Winckelmann) , 107 ff . Original, 28 7 Originality Reynolds on , 13 8 Shaftesbury on , 3 8 Original sensation (Taine) , 32 4

Manner, Lairess e on , 5 9 ff . "Material confines " o f art s (Lessing) , 161 Memnon, statu e of , 18 7 Metaphor, origi n o f (Vico) , 9 "Milieu" (Taine) , 32 5 Mirror, th e artis t as , 29 1 Mode, modes , 6 0 ff., 9 2 ff. , 20 1 Dorian, 6 1

"Paganism," Winckelmann's , 10 3 "Painters-philosophers," Mengs' s fasci nation with , 9 1 Painting, ai m o f (Delacroix) , 35 0 art o f Christia n worl d (Hegel) , 19 8 418

Subject Index Hegel on , 196-19 9 and poetry , 15 7 power o f (Dubos) , 3 0 schools o f (Roge r d e Piles) , 4 9 f . and sculptur e (Leonardo) , 16 9 f . spiritual characte r of , 19 6 Panorama painters , 26 3 Paradox on Acting (Diderot), 13 0 Paragone, 32 , 168 , 20 7 "Parts o f painting " (Mengs) , 9 1 Passion o f Christ , subjec t matte r o f art , 191 Passions, artificial , 2 1 in Baroqu e art , 11 6 f . Dubos on , 2 1 Patronage, Didero t on , 12 8 Peri Hupsos (Longinus) , 7 6 Personification, 24 4 Bachofen on , 24 3 Philosophers, i n ar t theory , 5 ff. "Philosophical Art. " See "Art philoso phique" Photographic sho t (Delacroix) , 352 f . Photography, 32 2 Baudelaire on , 36 7 Delacroix's interes t in , 35 3 Pietism, 115 , 297 , 30 0 Pleasure, motiv e o f art , 2 2 and need , 2 0 search fo r (Dubos) , 2 0 "Poetic logic, " lOff . "Poetics," Vic o on , 8 f . Poetry, Reynold s on , 13 6 Positivism, 319-32 9 Poussinists an d Rubenists , 26 5 Presentiment (Ahnung), 297 ff. Runge on , 31 2 Prometheus, Shaftesbury' s preferenc e for, 4 0 "Prospect painting " (Fernow) , 24 9 Pure color , 20 4 ff . "Pure pleasure, " Dubo s on , 2 4 "Pure sensation, " Vic o on , 1 0

Quarrel betwee n Ancient s an d Moderns , 182, 31 0 "Quasi-reality" (Dubos) , 2 6 Raphael's Transfiguration, Hege l on , 19 7 Raphael versu s Michelangelo , 13 7 Realism, 329-34 7 Baudelaire rejects , 36 6 ff . origin o f term , 32 9 ff . Proudhon defends , 33 3 Religion, 31 2 and art , Hege l on , 18 0 Runge on , 31 1 ff . Kinascimento dell'antichita, 101 Romantic ar t for m (Hegel) , 189-19 2 Rope plaiting , Bachofe n on , 24 2 Royal Academy , 13 2 Ruins i n painting , Lairess e on , 6 8 "Rules," 12 8 academic, 35 2 rejected b y Giordan o Bruno , 12 9 "Sacramental imitation " (Greene) , 11 1 "Sacred sign, " concep t of , 22 9 Sacred themes , i n Protestan t art , 6 6 ff . Schizzo, 35 5 f . Science o f mythology , 231-24 5 Scientism, 32 2 "Script o f th e illiterate, " medieva l no tion of , 2 3 Sculpture, Baudelair e on , 21 4 ff . ambiguity of , 21 5 audience of , 21 6 Hegel on , 19 3 ff . primitive art , 21 7 Sculpture, define d b y Herder , 17 0 Seclusion, artist' s ben t for , 4 1 Shaftesbury on , 4 1 Secularization o f painting , 6 5 ff. , 32 5 Sensation, 32 4 Taine on , 32 5 Sign, 30 8 "artificial," 15 4 Dubos on , 3 0 ff. 419

Subject Index Sign (continued) Hegel on , 18 1 f . Lessing's us e o f term , 15 3 ff . "natural," 31 , 15 4 painting employs , 3 1 f . theory of , 30 2 f . Vico on , 9 ff. Silence, Winckelman n on , 10 4 f . Simplicity, i n allegory , 23 0 Winckelmann on , 11 5 Simultaneity, 15 8 "Sister arts, " 15 1 ff . Sketch, show s artist' s character , 35 7 Delacroix on , 354-35 9 Diderot on , 127 , 35 7 ff . Richardson on , 8 0 and spectator , 35 9 "Sobriety," Champfleur y on , 33 8 Sounds an d colors , 20 3 Space, 157 Spectator, 29 4 and artist , 29 6 Dubos on , 1 9 moved b y wor k o f art , 35 0 Vico on , 1 5 Sphinx, Hege l on , 187 Spontaneity, 12 6 ff . States o f natur e an d min d (Carus) , 25 6 Still life , allegorica l meanin g of , 7 0 defined, 6 9 Lairesse on , 6 5 types of , 7 1 Stillness, 11 6 Sturm und Drang, 25 0 Style, "charming " (Mengs) , 9 4 "high," 9 2 "natural," 9 6 "significant o r expressive, " 9 5 Subjectivity (Richter) , 27 6 Sublime, Richardso n on , 7 5 ff , 7 9 f . Piles, Roge r de , on , 7 6 Shaftesbury on , 4 2 Succession, Lessin g on , 15 9 Symbol, 224-28 3

artistic, 23 2 in Hegel' s aesthetics , 18 1 ff . and imag e (Creuzer) , 23 4 Solger on , 30 7 in stil l life , 7 1 Vico on , 1 3 ff . Symbolic ar t form , 183 , 184-18 7 Symbolik (Creuzer), 23 3 ff . Symbolism, 22 4 ff . begins i n Egyp t (Hegel) , 18 5 Synaesthesia, 20 0 ff . "Tactic" experience s (Riegl) , 20 8 Terhbilita, 93 Theater, Dubo s on , 2 7 f . Reynolds on , 13 6 "Theology o f color, " 26 6 Time, Lessin g on , 157 Tomb, symbolis m of , 24 1 Touch, 167 , 20 9 Tranquillity, characteristi c o f Gree k art , 115 Trompe I'oeil, 21 f., 152 , 15 6 Ugly, the , aesthetic s o f (Baudelaire) , 376-382 opposed t o harmony , 38 0 Victor Hug o on , 37 8 ff. "Unspecificity" (Unbezeichnung), 11 5 Urbild, 291 Ut pictura poesis, 32, 149 , 28 7 Vanitas stil l life , 7 0 Venus, Winckelmann on , 10 9 "Verstehen," Vic o on , 1 5 Villa Pamphili , 24 1 Vision, 167 and touch , 167 ff . Visual experience , 1 4 "Wet drapery, " Herde r on , 17 1 Work o f art , i n ar t theory , 12 3 Lessing on , 15 5 "World art, " 18 4 420

Printed i n the United State s 201677BV00003B/5/A

9 780814 711767

1