Ernst Gobrich - Vision and Visions (Ch. 19)

8/17/2019 Ernst Gobrich - Vision and Visions (Ch. 19)

1/25

I9VISION AND VISIONSCatholic Europe,first ha f rfthe seventeenth entury

The histmy of art is son1etimes described as the story of a succession ofvarious styles. We hear how the Romanesque or Norman style of thetwelfth century with its round arches was succeeded by the Gothic stylewith the pointed arch; how the Gothic style was supplanted by theRenaissance, which had its beginnings in Italy in the early fifteenth centuryand slowly gained ground in all the countries of Europe. The style whichfollowed the Renaissance is usually called Baroque. But, while it is easy toidentify the earlie r styles by definite marks of recognition, this is not sosi1nple in the case of hroquc. The f:1ct is that fl·on1 the Renaissanceonwards, almost up to our own time, architects have used the sarne basicforms- cohnnns, pilasters, cornices, en tablatures and mouldings, all ofwhich were originally borrowed from classical ruins. In a sense, therefore,it is true to say that the Renaissance style ofbuilding has continued fron1Bnmelleschi s days to our own, and rnany books on architecture speak o fthis whole period as Renaissance. O n the other hand, it is natural thatwithin such a long period tastes and £1shions in building should have variedconsiderably, and it is convenient to have different labels by ·which todistinguish these changing styles. It is a strange £1ct that n1any of theselabels which to . us are simply natnes of styles were originally words of abuseor derision. The word Gothic was first used by the Italian art critics of theRenaissance to denote the style which they considered barbarous, andwhich they thought had been brought into Italy by the Goths whodestroyed the Ronun Empire and sacked its cities. The word Mannerismstill retains for many people its original connotation of affectation andshallow irnitation, of which critics of the seventeenth centmy had accusedthe artists of the late sixteenth century. The word Baroque was a termen1ployed by critics of a later period who fought against the tendencies ofthe seventeenth century, and wanted to hold then1 up to ridicule. L3aroquereally n1.eans absurd or grotesque, and it was used by men who insisted that

the forms of classical buildings should never have been used or cornhinedexcept in the ways adopted by the Greeks and Romans. To disregard thestrict rules of ancient architecture seemed to these critics a deplorable lapseof taste- whence they labelled the style Baroque. It is not altogether easy


2/25

]Il l ; VISION AND VISIONS

for us to apprec iate these distinctions. We have become too accustomedto seeing buildings in our cities which defy the rules of classicalarchitecture or misunderstand them altogether. So we have become

insensitive in these matters and the old quarrels seen1 very remote fi-omthe architectural questions which interest us To us a church f:1yade likethat in figur 25 nuy not seem very cxcitlng, because we have seen son1any good and bad imitations of this type of building that we hardly turnour heads to look at thern; but when it was first built in Ron1e, in 1575,it was a n1ost revolutionary building. It was not just one rnore church inRome where there are rnany churches. It vvas the church of the newlyfounded Order of the Jesuits, on which high hopes were set for corn batingthe Reformation all over Europe. Its very shape was to be on a new andunusual plan; t he Renaissance idea of round and symmetrical churchbuilding had been rejected as unsuited to divine service, and a new simpleand ingenious plan had been worked out which was to be accepted al

over Europe. The church was to be in the fonn of a cross, topped by ahigh and stately cupola. In the one large, oblong space, known as the nave,the congregation could assemble without hindrance and look towards thernain altar. This stood at the end of the oblong and behind it was the apse,which was similar in fonn to that of the early basilicas. To suit therequirernents of private devotion and adoration of individual saints, a rowof sn1all chapels was distributed on either side of the nave each of whichhad an altar of its own and there were two larger chapels at the ends of thearms of he cross. It is a sirnple and ingenious way of planning a church andhas since been widely used. It combines the main features of n1edievalchurches- their oblong shape, etnphasizing the nuin al tar- with theachieven1cnts of Renaissance planning, in which so nmch stress is laid onlarge and roomy interiors into vyhich the light would stream through am ~ c s t i cdorne.

Looking closely at the fayadc of II Gestl, which was built by thecelebrated architect Giaconw della Porta (rs4r?-T602), we soon realize whyit n1ust have impressed contempora ries as being no less new and ingeniousthan the interior of the church. We sec at once that it is composed of theclements of classical architecture- we find all the set pieces together:columns (or rather, half-colun1ns and pilasters) carrying an architravecrowned by a high attic which in turn carries the upper storey. Even thedistribution of these set pieces crnploys son1e features of classicalarchitecture: the large n1iddle entrance, framed by colun1ns and flanked bytwo smaller entrances, recalls the scheme oftriun1phal arches, pa -11,e119figur 74 which (to repeat) becarne as finn1y in1planted in the architectsmind as the n ~ o rchord in the mind of musicians. There is nothing in thissin1ple and ~ c s t i cfayade to suggest deliberate defiance o f the classical


3/25

~ 9 CA TH OLIC -UltoPf . , FIRSl H ALf OF Ti lE S FVENTHNT II CFNTUWY

.

Giacomo della P or taC/llln·/1 f/1 C


4/25

} ) 0 V I S I O N N D V I S I O N S

builders by the upholders of pure classical tradition. But i f we cover theoffending ornatnents with a piece o f paper and try to visualize the buildingwithout then1, we must admit that they arc not rnerely ornatncntal.

Without them_ the building would fall apart . They help to give it thatessential coherence and unity which was the aim_ o f the artist. ln the courseo f titne, Baroque architects had to use ever nwre bold and unusual devicesto achieve the essential unity of a large pattern. Seen in isolation thesedevices often look puzzling enough, but in all good buildings they arcessential to the architect s purpose.

The developn1cnt of painting out of the deadlock of Mannerism, into astyle En· richer in possibilities than that o f the earlier great masters, was inson1e respects similar to that of Baroque architecture. In the great paintingsofTintorctto and ofEl Greco we have seen the growth ofsmne ideaswhich gained increasing importJnce in the art of the seventeenth century:the emphasis on light and colour, the disregard of simple balance, and

the preference for more cmnplicated compositions. Nevertheless,seventeenth-century painting is not just a continuation of the Manneriststyle. At least people at the time did not feel it to be so. They felt that arthad got into a dangerous rut, and rnust be got out of t. People likedtalking about art in those days. ln Ron1c, in particular, there were culturedgentlen1en who enjoyed discussions on the various m oven1ents amongthe artists o f their time, who liked to compare them_ with older masters,and to take sides in their quarrels and intrigues. Such discussions were inthemselves something new in the world o f art. They had begun in thesixteenth century with such questions as whether painting was better thansculpture, or whether design was tnorc important than colour or viceversa (the Florenti nes backing design, the Venetians colour). Now theirtopic was different: they talked }bout two artists who had come to Rmnefrmn northern Italy and whose methods seen1cd to them utterly opposed.One was Annibale Carracci T560-r6o9) from Bologna, the otherMichelangelo da Caravaggio 1573-rGro) fi·om a little place near Milan.Both these artists seemed tired of Mannerism. But the ways in which theyovercm1e its sophistications were very different. Annibale Carracci was an1en1ber o f a f: mily of painters who had studied the art ofVcnice and ofCorreggio. On his arrival in Rome, he fell under the spell o f Raphael sworks, which he greatly admired. He ain1ed at recapturing smnething oftheir sin1plicity and beauty instead o f deliberately contradicting them, asthe Mannerists had done. Later critics have attributed to hin1 the intentiono f imitating the best in all the great painters of the past. It is unlikely thathe ever fonnulated a programme o f this kind which is called eclectic ).That was done later, in the academies or art schools which took his workas a model. Carr acci llln1sclf was too tnuch o f a real artlst to adopt such a


5/25

391

5

Annibale C arracc itt· lliiJ ill 11/l llr//ittg

C:ltrist 1 - I


6/25

3 9 2 VJSJON 1 N D V IS I ONS

Whatever we may feel about Carracci's methods Caravaggio and hispartisans certainly did not think highly o f hem. The two painters, it is

tru e were on the best of erms- which was no easy matter in the case ofCaravaggio, for he was of a wild and irascible temper , quick to ta k e offe nce ,and even to run a da gger tl ro ugh a man. Bu t his work was on differentlines from Carracci s. To be afi·a id of ugliness seemed to Caravaggio acontemptible weakness. W h at h e wanted was truth. Truth as he saw it. li ehad no liking for classical mod els, n or any respe ct fo r 'ide al b eauty' . H ewanted to do away with co nvention and to thi n k about art afi·esh, j)(I,( CS30- 1 (t,ellres 15 16. Some people thought h e was mainly out to shock thepublic; that he had no respect for any kind ofbeauty or tradit ion. I le waso n e of he first pai n ters at whom these accusations were lev elled and the fi rstwhose outlook was sununed up by his critics in a slogan: h e was conde mn edas a 'naturalist'. In point offact, C aravaggio was f: 1r too great and serious anartist to fi·itte r away h is time in trying to cause a sensation. While the crit icsargued, h e was busy at work. And his work has lost nothin g of ts boldnessin the three centuries and mo r e since h e did it Consid er his painting of

5

C a r : t v ~ g g i o

Doubtiug f1w111ns,. 6 2 - 3

Oil 011 (. , H I \ .lS I 0 7 X qfi

em . ~ ~ i x 5i. in :S ithmg Sdtl{h:,t r undG:irh. ll. S.tn,mud.Pobd.un


7/25

393 C AT H O L I C HJUOPE, FIRST IIALI· ~ THE SEVENTHiNTH CENTURY

St Thomas figure 252: the three apostles star ing at Jesus, one of hem pokinghis finger into the wound in His side, look unconventional enough. Onecan imagine that such a painting struck devout people as being irreverentand even outrageous. They were accuston led to seeing the apostles asdignified figures draped in beautiful folds- here they looked like commonlabourers, with weathered faces and wrinkled brows. But, Caravaggiowould have answered, they were old labourers, conunon people- and as tothe unseemly gesture ofDoubting Thmnas, the Bible is quite explicit aboutit. Jesus says to hin1: 'Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: andbe not faithless, but believing' (StJohnxx. 27).

Caravaggio's 'naturalistn', that is, his intention to copy nature faithfully,whether we think it ugly or beautiful, was perhaps more devout thanCarracci's emphasis on beauty. Caravaggio nmst have read the Bible againand again, and pondered its words. He was one of the great artists, likeGiotto and DUrer before him, who wanted to see the holy events before

his own eyes as if they had been happening in his neighbour's house. Andhe did everything possible to make the figures of the ancient texts lookmore real and tangible. Even his way of handling 1ight and shade helps tothis end. His light does not make the body look graceful and soft: it isharsh and almost glaring in its contrast to the deep shadows. But it IDakesthe whole strange scene stand out with an uncompromising honesty whichfew ofhis contemporaries could appreciate, but which had a decisive effecton late r artists.

Annibale Carracci and Caravaggio fell out of ashion in the nineteenthcentury, but have come into their own again. But the impulse they bothgave to the art of painting can hardly be imagined. Both ofthen1 worked inRome, and Rome, at the tin1e, was the centre of he civilized world. Artists

fi·mn all parts ofEurope came there, took part in the discussions 011 painting,took sides in th'e quarrels of he cliques, studied t he oldnusters, andreturned to their native countries with tales of he latest 'n lovements'n luch as n1odern artists used to do with regard to Paris. According to theirnational traditions and temperaments, artists pr eferred one or other of herival schools in Rorne, and the greatest of hem developed their ownpersonal idiom frmn what they had learned of hese foreign n1ovements.Ron1e still renuins the best vantage point from which to glance at thesplendid panora11 1a of painting in the countries adhering to RomanCatho1icisn1. O f he nuny Italian masters who developed their style inRome, the nwst f:ttnous was probably Guido Reni (I 575-L642), a painterfi·onll3ologna who after a brief period ofhesitation threw in his lot withthe school of he Carracci. His fan1e, like that ofhis tnaster, once stoodinuneasurably higher than it happens to stand just now, page 22 jigure ·There was a tin1e when his name ranked with that ofRaphacl, and i f we


8/25

394 VISION A N i l VISIONS

look at igure 253 we may realize why. Reni pain ted this fresco on t he ceili ngof a palace in Rome in I ) T4· It represents Aurora (the Dawn) and theyouthful su n - god Apollo in his chari ot, round w hi ch the fa ir maiden s of heHours (th e H orae) dance t h eir joyfu l m eas ure preceded by a torch-be aringchild, the Morning Star. Such are the grace and beauty of hi s pi ct ur e ofth e rad iant rising day t hat one can understand ho w it reminded people ofRaph ael a nd his fi:escoes in the Farnes ina , page J 18 jig ure 204 Indeed Reniwa n te d them to think of hi s great painter, w h om he had set o u t to emulate.If mo d ern critic s have often thoug h t less highly ofReni s achi evement, thi smay be the reason. They feel, or fear, t hat this very emulat ion of anotherm aster ha s made Reni s wo rk too self - consc io u s, too deliberate in its st rivingfor pure beauty. We need not qua rr el ove r these distinctions. It is no doubttrue that R eni differed from Raph ael in hi s whole approach. With Rap hael,we fed th at the sense ofbea ut y and serenity flo wed naturall y ·o m his wholenature and art; wi t h Reni we feel that he chose to pa in t like t hi s as a matter o f

p1inciplc, and th at if perchan ce Caravaggio s disci ples had convinced imthat he was wro n g, h e cou ld have adopted a different style . But it was notReni s fault that these matters ofp1inciple had been brought up and h adpermeated the i n ~and the conversatio n of painters. In fact, it was noo n e s fault. Art h ad bee n develop ed to suc h a point that arti sts werein ev it ab ly co nscious of he ch oice of methods befor e them. And once weacce pt this, we are ·fi.·ee to admire the way in whic h Reni carried out hisprogramm e ofbeauty, how he delib erately di sca rd ed anyt hi ng in nature th athe considered lo w and ugly or unsuitab le for hi s lofty idea s, and how hisqu es t for forms mo r e perfect and more id eal than rea li ty was rewarded withsucc ess. I t was Ann ibale Carracci, Ren.i and the ir fo llowers w ho formulatedthe programme of dealizing, of beautif)ring nature, accord ing to the

standard s set by the classica l statues. We call it the neo-cl assica l or academic

253

Guido RcniAurora 6 4

F n . : ~ t · or 28 x 700 e m

11 0 x 1.76 in ; P ; ~ . l : : \ 7 7 0ll :wicini Rospigliosi.

ome


9/25

1 5 ~

N ic o l a ~PoussinEi iuAraulin o

11i3S 9

. 95

il 011 , U I \ . 1~ ss X 1 21un n Y r) 7 inl ouvn· ari s

CA IIIOLIC EURUPh, I·IR ST H i l l . ~CH T H ~ S ~ V T[ N l l l ~ N T U i l Y

programme as distinct fi·o m classica l art, wh ic h is not bound up with anyprogramm e at a ll. The dispute s over it are not likel y to ce ase soon, but noone denies that amon g its cha mpio ns have bee n great ma ste rs w ho gaveLIS a g limp se of a wo rld of puri ty and be au ty witho ut w hi ch we w ould beth e p oorer .

The gre at est of h e acad emi c masters w as th e Fr enchman Ni co las Po u ssi nr 5 ~) 4- L 0 6 5 ) ,w ho m ade Ro m e h is adopted home town. Pous sin st udi e d th e

classica l statues with passionat e ze al, because h e wanted their beauty to helphim co nvey his vision ofbygone lands of inno cence and dignity . Fig rerepre se nts one of he mo st fa m ous result s o f these unremitting studi es . Itshows a calm , sunny sout h ern landscape. B ea uti ful yo un g m en and a fairand dign ified yo u ng woma n have gat hered round a la rge tom b of sto ne.One of he sh ep h erds - for sh ep he rd s th ey ar e , as we sec by th e ir w reat h sand their sh eph e rd s t a f f . ~ -has k nel t down to try to decipher t he insc riptionon th e tomb , and a seco nd o ne points toward s it wh ile he lo o ks at the fa irsh epherd ess w h o, like her compan ion opposi te , stands in silent m ela nc ho l y.It i s in sc ribed in LltinET IN A HC ADlA EGO (Ev e n inAr cady I am): l , De ath,reign eve n in the idylli c dreamland of he pastoral s, in Arcady. N ow we

un dersta nd the wo nd e rful gest ur e o f awe and co n templa

tio n w ith whic h theframin g figure s gaze at the tomb , and we admire eve n more th e bea u ty w ithwhic h the readin g fi g ur es answer each ot h er s mo ve m e n ts . Th e a rr angementsee m s si mpl e enoug h but it is simp lic ity born ofimm en se a rtisti c know ledge .


10/25

96 V I S I O N A N D V I S I O N S

On l y such knowl edge co uld evoke this nostalgi c visio n of calm rep ose inwhich d eath h as lost its terro r.

It is for the same mood of no stalgic beauty that the works of anot herItali anized Frenc hm an became famous. H e was Cl aude Lo rrain(T )oo - 82), some six yea rs you nge r th an P oussin. Cl aude stud ied t helands cape o f he R oman Campag na, the plains and hi lls ro und Rome withth eir lovely so u thern hu es and the ir m ajes tic remind ers of a great pas t.Lik e Pous sin , he showed in his sketc hes that h e was a p erfect mast er of herealisti c repr ese nt a tio n o f nature, and his stud ies of rees a re a jo y to lookat . Bu t for hi s fini shed pi ctures a nd etc hi n gs he sele c ted o nly such mo t ifsas he co nsid ered worthy o f a place in a drea mlik e vision o f h e past, and hedip ped it all in a go lden lig ht or a silvery air w hi ch app ear to transfigurethe who le scene,figure 255 . It was C laude who first o pe ned people s eyesto the sublime beauty of natur e, and fo r n early a cen tu ry after hi s deathtrav ellers used to judge a piece o f eal sce n ery according to his standa rd s.If i t remind ed th em of hi s vis ions, t hey ca lled it lo vely an d sat down to

255

Claude lorr: inI tllulsmpr ll ith sncrf/iccto Apollo, 66 2 3

Oil il C:IIIVJS 17 X

21 t. ll1 . 6S 11 8 ~in:A n ~ l c o c yAhhcy.Cambridgeshire


11/25

3 9 7 C AT I I O U C EUROf'l ., HHST HAl l · OF THE SEVFNTEENTH CFNTUH\ '

picnic there. RichEnglishtnen went even further and decided to nwdel thepieces of nature they caUed their own, the gardens on the ir estates, onClaude s drean1s ofbeauty. In this way, many a tract of he lovely English

counttyside should really bear the signature of he French painter whosettled in Italy and tnade the programme of he Carracci his own.

The one northern artist to come tnost directly into contact with theRoman atmosphere ofCarracci's and Caravaggio s days was a genera tionolder than Poussin and Claude, and about s old s Guido Rcni. Hewas the Flcn1ing Peter Paul Rubens (1577-164o), who came to Romein r6oo when he was twenty-three years o ld - perhaps the mostim.prcssionablc age. He must have listened to many heated discussionson art, and studied a great nmnber of new and older works, not onlyin Ron1e, but also in Genoa and Mantua (where he stayed for son1etitne). He listened and learned with keen interest, but does not seen1 tohave joined any of the 'nwvctnents' or groups. In his heart he rennineda Flemish artist- an artist fi·mn the country where Van Eyck andRogier van dcr Weyden and Bruegel had worked. These painters fi·mnthe Netherlands had always been tnost interested in the variegatedsurbces of things: they had tried to usc a artistic means known to themto express the texture of cloth and living flesh, in short to paint s

£tithfully s possible everything the eye could sec. They had not troubledabout the standards ofbeauty so sacred to their Italian col1eagues, andthey had not even always shown much concern for dignified subjects. Itwas in this tradition that Rubens had grown up, and ll his admiration forthe new art that was developing in Italy does not seem to have shaken hisfundamental belief that a painter s business was to paint the world aroundhin1; to paint what he liked, to nnkc us feel that he enjoyed the nunifoldliv ing beauty_,.9f things. To such an approach there was nothingcontradictory in Caravaggio s and Carracci s art. Rubens admired theway in which Carracci and his school revived the painting of classicalstories and n1yths and arranged irnpressive altar-panels for the edif icationof the f1ithful; but he also admired the uncomprornising sincerity withwhich Caravaggio studied nature.

When Rubens returned to Antwerp in 6oS he was a rnan of thirtyone, who had learned everything there was to be learned; he hadacqu ired such £1cility in handling brush and paint, in representing nudesand drapery, armour and jewels, animals and landscapes, that he had norival north of the Alps. His predecessors in Flanders had nwst1y painted

on a srnall scale. He had brought fi·mn Italy the predilection for hugecanvases to decorate churches and palaces, and this suited the taste of thedignitaries and princes. He had learned the art of arranging t he figures ona vast scale, and of using light and colours to increase the general effect.


12/25

9 ~ VISION AND VISIONS

Figure 256, a sketch for the painting over the high altar of an Antwerpchurch, shows how well he had st udied his Italian predecessors, and howboldly he developed their ideas. It is again the old, time-honoured theme of

the Holy Virgin surrounded by saints, with which artists had grapp led at thetime of the Wilton Diptych, pages 216-J? fifiure 143, Bellini's Madonna ,pa t J e327 jlgure 208, or Titian's 'Pesaro Madonna , page JJO fiRure 210 and ittnay be worth while to turn to these illustrations once more to see thefreedmn and case with which Rubens handled the ancient task. One thingis clear at the flrst glance: there is more nwvement, more light, ntm-c space,and there are rnore figures in this painting than in any of the earlier ones.The saints are crowding to the lofty throne of the Virgin in a festive throng.In the foreground the Bishop St Augustine, the Martyr StLawrence withthe grill on which he suffered, and the monk St Nicholas of Tolentino leadthe spectator on to their object of worship. StGeorge with the Dragon, andSt Sebastian with a quiver and arrows, look into each other s eyes in fervent

emotion, while a warrior- the paln1 of martyrdmn in his h a n d - is aboutto kneel before the throne. A group of women, an1ong them a nun, arelooking up enraptured to the rnain scene, in which a young girl, assisted bya little angel, is falling on her knees to receive a ring fi-on1 the little ChristChild, who is bending towards her from_ His mother s lap. It is the legendof the betrothal ofSt Catherine, who saw such a scene in a vision andconsidered herself the Bride of Christ. Stjoseph watches benevo lently fron1behind the throne, and St Peter and St Paul - one recognizable by the key,the other by the sword- stand in deep conten1plation. They tnake aneffective contrast to the im_posing figure ofSt John on the other side,standing alone, bathed in light, throwing up his arms in ecstatic admirationwhile two charming little angels drag his reluctant lamb up the steps of thethrone. Frmn the sky another pair o ~ I i t t l eangels c o n ~ erushing down tohold a wreath oflaurels over the Virgin's head.

Having looked at the details, we must once more consider the whole,and admire the grand sweep with which Rubens has contrived to hold allthe figures together, and to irnpart to it all an atn1osphere ofjoyful andfestive solen1nity. Small wonder that a master who could plan such vastpictures with such sureness of hand and eye soon had more orders forpaintinbrs than he could cope with alone. But this did not worry hin1.Rubens was a man of great organi zing ability and great personal charm;many gifted painters in Flanders were proud to work under his directionand thereby to learn from hin1. If an order for a new picture came fi·on1 oneo f he churches, or fi·om one of the kings or princes ofEuropc, he wouldsmnetin1es paint only a snull coloured sketch. Figure 256 is such a coloursketch for a large composition.) It would be the task of his pupils orassistants to transfer these ideas on to the large canvas, and only when they

Peter Paul RubensV h ; ~ iawl Childenthroned ruitlr Sllints[. 1 ) 2 7 - 8

Sketch for a larg< ; i l t ~ r -

painting; oil on wood,~ o . 2x .15·5 em, 3 1 > ~x~ t Y . i n ;Gem:ildcg.,]nit•,Staatlichc Mu '


13/25

3\ 9 CA I I IOl iC ~ U I O P E ,FIRST H A r O F THE ~ V N I EENTII CENTURY


14/25

4 VIS ON N D V I S I O N S

had fini shed gro un ding an dpainting according to the m aste r sidea s might he tak e the brush againan d to u ch up a £1ce he re and asilke n dr ess th ere, or smooth outany harsh co ntrasts. He wasconfi d ent th at his b rush work co uldquickl y impart life to an yth ing,and he wa s righ t . For that was thegreatest secret ofRubens s ar t - hisma gic skill in making anythingalive, in tensely and joyf ully alive .W e c an bes t gau ge and a dm ir e thism aste ry o f hi s in some of the simp ledr aw in gs, page J6, figure 1 and

paintings do n e for hi s own pleasure.Figure 257 sho ws the head of a littlegirl , probab ly Ru be ns s daug h ter.

T here are n o tricks of co m p osition he re , no splend id rob es or str ea ms oflight, but a simp le en face portrait o f a child. And ye t it seems to breatheand palp ita te lik e liv ing Aesh. Co m p ared w ith th is , the portrai ts o f ear lierce ntu ries see m so mehow remot e and un r ea l - h owever great th ey m aybe as works of art. It is vain to try to analyse how Ruben s ac hie ved thisimpr essio n of gay vi tali ty, but it surely had something to d o w ith th e bo ldand delicate to u ch es ofli gh t with w hi ch he indi cated t he moisture o f helips and the mode llin g of the face and hair . To an eve n grea te r degre e th anTitian b efore hi m, h e used th e brus h as hi s ma in instrument. His paintings

ar e no lon ge r drawings care full y modelled in co lour - th ey are produ cedby painte rly means, and that enha nces the impr essio n ofl i f e a nd v igou r.

It was a combinat ion of his unri valled gifts in arra n ging large co lourfulco mp osi tion s, and in infu sing them wi t h buoyant energy, that secured a£1me and succe ss for R ub ens such as no paint er had enjoy ed before. His artwas so eminentl y s uitab le to en han ce the po m p and splendour of palaces,and to glorifY th e po we rs of this wo rld, that he en j oye d som et hi n g like amo n op o ly in th e sph ere in w h ich h e m oved . I t was the tim e durin g w hichth e reli giou s and soc ial tensions ofE ur op e c am e to a h ead in the fear fulThirty Years War on the Co ntin e nt and in th e Civil War in England . Onth e one sid e stood th e abso lu te mo n arch s and their co ur ts, most of hemsup p orted b y th e Ca t h olic Church - on the other t11e rising merchantcities, most of th em Pr o testa nt. Th e Ne the rland s th ems elves were dividedinto Pr o testant H olland, w hi ch resisted Spa ni sh C atholi c dominat i on, an dCa tholi c Flanders, rul ed from An twerp under Spani sh allegiance . It was as

157

Pe ter P au l Rubenslead o a cllild,

probably the artist's

dau) llfer Clam Sereua,c. 1616

O il on C; lUVOIS, m ountedon wood, x 26.3 rm IJ

· in; Srunmlunge n dl 1Filrs t cn von Li echtem teinVadu


15/25

..J.OI \ 1\ I H U li [UROI l - li l tS r l l r l f or ~ S t V l NTEENT I1 C CNllJUY

58

'eta Paul R u b t : l l~

S·· f-prtmit,c. t6 WOil on cJJl\ .h . I OtJ S x

~ i n u... 3•· 11 x l H:t \ , u n~ th ts l o ri s d l t . S

\ l u ·t m l t • mu

th e painter of he Ca t holic ca mp that Ru b e ns rose to his uni qu e position.H e accepted co mm i ssions fi:om th e J es ui ts in Antwe rp and fi·om theCa tholi c ruler s of Fland e rs, ft·om Kin g Louis XIII ofFranc e and hi s c raft ymoth e r M a1ia d e M edi ci, fi· om Kin g Philip III ofSpai n an d Kin g C harles IofEngland , w h o co nfe rr ed a kn igh thood on him . Whe n tra vellin g fi·omcourt to court as an honou red guest, h e was ofte n ch arged wi th delicatepo litica l and dip lomat ic mi ssions , fi)rem ost among them that of e ffecti nga reco n ciliatio n betwee n England and Spa in in the in terest of w h at wewo u ld ca ll today a ' reac tionary' b loc. M ea n wh ile he remain ed in touchw ith the sc h ol ars of hi s age, and engaged in lea rn ed Latin co rr espond enceon qu es tion s of archa eo lo gy an d art. H is self-po r trait wi th th e nobleman'ssw or d ,Ji( //re 258 sho w s that h e w as very cons ciou s ofhi s l t]Ue pos i tion .Ye t there is no t hi ng pornpo us or vain in th e s hrew d look of hi s eyes . H e


16/25

~ 0 2 V I S I O N N D V I S I O N

remain ed a true art ist. ll th e while pi ct ur e s of dazz ling mastery po u redou t fi·om hi s ntwerp stu di os on a stu pen dous scale. Und er hi s hand theclassica l fables and allego 1ical in vent i ons b eca me as convinc in gly a live asthe pict ur e of hi s own dau g ht er.

All ego rical p ic tu r es are usua lly regarde d a s rather bo r in g a nd abs tra ctbu t for the age o f Rub en s they we re a co n ve ni ent m ea ns o f exp ressin gid eas. F igure 25 9 is suc h a pi ct ur e whic h Ru be ns is said to h ave presented asa gift to C harles 1 w h en h e t1ied to indu ce him t o make p eace w ith Spain.The paintin g c ontra sts t h e bless in gs of peace w ith th e h or rors o f wa r.Mine rva the goddess of wisdom and th e civilizi n g a rts driv es away M arsw ho is about to withdr w hi s dre adful co m panion th e Fu r y o f warha ving already turn ed back. A nd un d er the prot ec t ion of Mi n erva th e j oysof pea ce a r c spr ea d o u t before ou r eyes symbo ls o f i·uitfuln ess and plentyas on l y Ru bens co ul d co nce ive th e m : P eace offe ring her br east to a chi ld

a faun b lissfull y eyei ng th e go rgeous· u ts f i ~ ?u re 260

the ot h er compa nionsof Bacch us d anci ng ma cnads w ith gold and treasur es and t h e pantherpla yin g p eacefull y lik e a big cat; on the other side th r ee childr en w ithanxious eyes fleei n g fi·om th e te rr or o f wa r to th e have n o f peace and

259

Pe ter P;ml Ruben sA l i < ~ o r y11 the b l es si i i ~S

' f'penre 6 2 ~ 3Oil o c uw a \, . OJ -5 x1 9 ~ Xo -4 x 1 7 ~ in ;

N arion al GJ IIcry Lond on


17/25

z o

>cu l o igure l W

- l 0 3 C T H O l i C E U H O I ~ ,FIRST H l ~OF TH io ~ c \ I[ N T NI C E N T U I Y

plent y, crowned by a yo ung gen ius. No one who lo ses himself in the 1ichdetails of thi s pi cture, with it s vi vid con trast s a nd glowing co lour s, can fa ilto sec that thes e ideas we r e to Ru b ens not p ale abs traction s b u t for ce ful

realiti es . Perh aps it i s beca use of this quality th at so m e peo pl e mu st firstget accustomed to Rub e ns befor e t h ey begin to lo ve and unde rstand him.H e had n o use for t he idea l for ms of classical bea uty . They were toore rno te and abst ract for hi m . f-l is m en and wo m en are livi ng be in gs suchas h e saw and lik ed. And so, since slenderness was not the fashio n in theFlanders of hi s day, som e people object to the f:1t wo m en in his pictures .This critic ism , of cours e, has ttl to do with art and we need no t ,therefore, tak e it too seriously. B u t, since it is so often made, it m ay bewell to reali ze that j oy in ex ub erant and alm ost boi ste rous life in all itsmanifestations saved Rubens fi·om beco mi n g a me re virtuoso of h is ar t. Itturned his paintings fi-om mere Bar oque deco rations of festive h alls intom aste rpie ces wh ich retain th eir v italit y even within th e c hi llingatm os pher e of museum s.

Am ong Ru bens s many famou s pupi ls an d assista nt s, t h e greatest andm ost ind epend ent was Anthon y va n D yck (1599 - T641) , who was twentytwo years his junior, and belonged to the generat ion ofPoussin andClaude Lorrain. H e soon acquir ed all the virtuosity o f Ru b ens in rend eringth e textu re and sur£1ee of thi n gs, whether it we re silk or human Aesh, but


18/25

J O J V S O N \N V S O N S


19/25

-105

161

j\urhon) von DyckClurrks II[F.uglmuf... l l i35

()II on l-Jn\ .t

, . (>6 x . 07

l l · I ~~ 4x ~ • • in:

IVII\W , u i ~

z6

J\uthou y van Dyckf.Nd Joltu ,,d L rfHmwd Swm1, c. t 638

Oil O i l ((1 11\ ,1\ . J7.5 )

q •.l nn.1

• x 57 • 1l:N.llion.tl G.llk·ry . Lundou

C; \T t tOl iC: H I HOVE. f iRST HAll · T t t [ SEVEN I H N tt CENT U RY

he differed w idely fi·om hi s m aster in temperament and rno o d. It see msthat Va n D yc k was no t a health y man, and in his paintin gs a languid andslightl y melan c hol y mood often pr evails. It may ha ve b ee n th is qu ali ty that

appealedto

the a ustere noblemen o f Genoa and to the

cavali erso f Cha

rlesl s e n to ur age. In 1632 h e had b ec o m e th e Court P ainter o f C harles I , andhis na m e was an g licized into Sir An t hony Va ndyke. It is to him that weowe an artistic r eco rd of thi s soc iety wi t h its defiant ly ari stoc ratic bea rin gand its cult o f co urtl y refineme n t. I I s portra i t o f Charles ,figure 26 1, j ustdismounted fi·om hi s horse on a huntin g ex ped iti on, sh owed the Stuartmonarch as h e would ha ve w ish ed to live in hi story: a fig ur e of matchlesseleg an c e, o f unqu es tio n ed au thority and hi gh cultur e, the patron o f thearts, and the uph o lder o f th e d ivine 1ight ofkings, a man w ho nee ded noo ut w ard t r app in gs of power to e nh ance hi s natural dignit y. No wonde rtha t a painter w ho could bring ou t th ese qu ali ties in his portr aits w ith su chperfe c tion was eage rly so ught aft er b y soc iety . In fact, Van D yck was so

overburde ned wi th com missions for portraits that h e, lik e his m aste rRu bens, was un able to co pe wi th th em all himse l f H e had a number ofassista n ts, who painted the costumes o f hi s sit ters aJTanged on dummies,and he did no t always pai n t even th e whole o f th e head. Some o f theseportr aits are un co mfortabl y near th e flattering fashion - dummi es o fl ater

pe r iods , and th e re is no doubt that VanDy ckesta bli shed a dan gerous prec ed en t w hic h did mu chh arm to po rt rai t paint in g. B u t all this can not de tra c tfi·om th e g reat ness o f h is best portrai ts. N o r sh o uldit ma k e us forget that it was h e, mor e than an yo neelse, w ho help ed to cryst alliz e the id ea ls o fb lue-blooded n obi lit y a nd ge ntlem anly ease .figure 262w hi ch e mi ch o ur vision o f rnan no less t h a d oRu b en s s robu st and sturd y figures o f ove rb1imming li fe.

O n on e o f hi s j ourneys to Sp ai n , Ru b ens hadm et a yo un g painter who was born in th e sam eyea r as his p upil VanDyck, and w h o filled apos i tio n at t he court o f Kin g Philip I V in Madridsimi lar to tha t o f Van D yc k at th e co urt o f Ch arl es Ll i e was Di ego Velazquez (1599 - rooo). T h ough h eha d not yet been to lt aly, Vel azq uez had beenprofi)lmdly irnpressed by th e discoveries and th em ann er of Caravaggio, w hi c h he got to knowthrough the work o f mi tato rs. H e had absor bed th epr og ranun e o f naturalism , and devoted hi s art toth e disp assio n ate observ ation o f nature regard less o f


20/25

.t Oll V I S ION AND V ISIO NS

conventions. F ~ ~ t l / e263 sho w s on e of his ear ly works, an old man sellin gwater in th e st ree ts of Seville. It is a gen re picture o f the type t heNethe rlanders invented to display their sk ill, but it is done with all theinten sity and p ene tra tion of Ca ra vaggio s D o ubt i n g Thomas ,fig ure 252.Th e old man with his wo rn and wrinkly face and his ragged cloak, thebi g ear thenwa re flask w ith it s rounded shape, the surface of the glazedjug and the pla y o f ight o n the tran spa rent glass, all thi s is painted soconv in cin gly that we feel we co uld to uch the objects. No one who standsbefore this pictur e feel s inclined to ask whether the objects represented arebeau tifu l or ugly or whet h er the scene it represents is important or triv ial.Not even the co lour s are st ric tly beautiful by themsel ves. Dr own, grey,

gre enis h to nes prev ail. And yet , th e wh o le is j oined together i n such a richand mellow ha 1mony tha t th e picture remains quite unforg etta ble toanyone who has ever pa used in fi-om o f t.

On the advice ofRubens, Velazque z obta in ed leave to go to R ome

>6

Di ego Vcl < z


21/25

·I 0 7 CA HOLI C: liURO I r., flfp,lpt lu m) Cilf X,

>4 -50

tlll ont-.mVJ S q x•:uun. H Y 1x t in;, c i ~DoriJ Pamphiij

t u n ~

to stu dy th e paintin gs of the great master s. H e we nt th e re in 1630 butsoo n returned to M ad1id wher e, apa rt fr om a seco nd It alian journey , heremained as a famou s and resp ec ted member of th e court ofPhilip IV.Hi s main task w as to pain t the portr aits of th e Kin g and th e member s o fth e ro yal family. Whil e few o f them h ad att rac tiv e, o r eve n in t erestin g,faces, t he y ce rt ainl y insist ed o n th e ir dignity, an d dr esse d in a stiff andunbeco min g fashi o n. Not a very in vit in g task for a painte r, it wo uld seem.But Velazqu e z transfor m ed th ese p or trait s, as if by magi c , into some of th emost fascina tin g pie ces of painting t h e wo rld ha s e ver seen. He had longgiv en up too close an adhe rence to Ca rav aggio s mann er. He had studi edth e bru sh wo rk o fRuben s and ofTitian, but there is not hi n g secondha ndn his mod e of appro achi n g natu re. Figure 264 sh ows Velazquez s po r trait

o f Po p e In nocent X, painted in R ome in r64 50, a little m ore th an ahundred yea rs after Titian s Paul III , page 3J5 figur e 2 4 ; it remind s us thatin th e hi sto ry of ar t th e passage o f time need not alway s lead to a c ha n ge in


22/25

~ V I S I ON A N V I SIONS

outlook. Velazquez su rely felt the challenge of that masterpiece, much as

Titian had been stimulated by Raphael s group, pag e ]22 .f1gure 206. But forall his mastery ofTit ian s means, the way his brus h renders t he sheen oftbe material and the sureness of touch w i th w hi ch he se izes the Pope sexpression, we do not doubt for a mornent that this is the nun himself andnot a well-rehearsed formula. Nobody w ho goes to Rome sh o uld miss th eb Tcat experience o f see in g this mast erpie ce in the Palaz zo Doria Pamphili.Ind eed, Velazquez s mature wo rks rel y to such an extent on the eff ec t ofthe brushwork, and on the d elicate harmony of th e colours, t h atillustrations ca n give only very little idea of w hat the originals are li k e.Most of all this applies to his enormous canvas (some ten feet high ) whichgoes under th e name Las Meninas (the maids o f h o n o u r , _ f i . ~ u re 266. W esec Vcl;.lzqucz himself at wo rk on a large pa in ting an d if we look morecar efu lly we also discover what it is he is pa in ting. The m.irror on the backwall of the studio re ect s th e fi g ur es of the King and Qu e en figure 265

who are s itting for their po r trai t. We theref ore sec what th ey sec - a crow do f people w ho ha ve co me into the st udio. It i s their li ttle daug h ter, th efnf:1nta Margarita, flanked b y tvvo maids of honour, o ne of them serv ingher rcfi-cs hm cn ts while t h e other curtsies to the royal cou ple. We kn o wtheir names as we also know about th e tvvo dwarE (the u gly female andthe boy teasing a dog), who were kept for amusement. Th e grave adult sin the background seem to rnake sure that the visitors b e hav e .

What exactly does it all signify? We may never know, butI sh o uld like to fancy t hat Velazquez has arrested a real moment of i m e

long before the invention of thecamera. P e rhaps the princess wasbrought into the royal pre sence to

relieve the boredom o f the sittingand the King or Que e n remarkedto Velazquez that here was aworthy subject for his brush.The words spoke n b y th esove reign arc always treated as aconu11a1Kl and so ~ C may owethis masterpiece to a pa ss ing wis hw hich only Velazquez was ableto turn into rea li ty.

But of course Velazquez did notusua ll y rel y on such i nc i e n t~ totransform his records of reality intogreat paintings. Th ere is nothingun con v e ntional in a portrait suc h as

66

Di ego Vd{Jzquc zL l15 Jleuilws , 1056

Oil ou Jm •as. JiS x1 76 Clll . l.: j\IS: X IOX Y1 :Pr Hio M 1clrid

L l ~t i l o f li g un ~ 266


23/25

~ 9 CA I ' H UI I cUi lOPE , 'IUS I H A L f UF T i l E SEV k N' I I N I H C E N T U i l \ '


24/25

J 1 () VI S ION A N D V IS IONS

hi s pi c tu r e of th e two - yea r-o ld Prin ce Philip P rosper of S p ain ji g ure 267 nothin g, perh aps th at st rik es u s at first glan ce. l3ut in the o rigi1a l, th evari o us shades of red ( fro m th e 1 c h Persian carp et to the velvet chai r, thecur t ain , the s leev es and t h e rosy ch eek s o f th e chi ld), combin ed w ith thecoo l and s ilvery ton es of w h ite and grey w hi ch shade in to th e bac kgroun d ,result in a uniqu e harmo n y. Eve n a li ttle m otif ike t h e small d og o n th ered chair reveals an u no btrusive m aste ry w hi ch is trul y mira culo us. If w eloo k bac k at th e lit tle do g in Jan va n Eyc k s portr ait of th e Arn o lfini

267

lJ it:go Vcl:iz qu ezPri a• Philip Prosperc fSpaill 1659Oil on n v ~ llS.j xIJ J 5 em 5 x .llJ in;Kunst h htori'f h


25/25

411 CATHO l i C E UROPE FIRST II ALr OF Ti lE SEVEN T EENT H C:ENTURY

An artist s pul1 ius wlleeuth ceut11ryl~ o m rwith nri nture s

on the wall c. 1625-39

Duwing by Pi c rc r VJ il

Lur ; pen ink and a ~ o nPli r . J X zs B e m

X I O i n

Kupfersticllkab inet l St tatl iclJc Mus n Bcrli n

co up le, page 243 ,.figure 160, we see wi th w h at different m ean s great artis ts

ca n achieve th eir effects. Van Eyck took pains to co py evety curly hair ofthe little creatu re Velazquez, two hundr ed years later, tri ed on ly to catc hits cha ra cteristic impression. Lik e Leona rd o only mo r e so, he relied onour imagination to follow his guidan ce and to s uppl em e nt what h e had leftout. Thou gh he did not pa in t one separate h air, his little dog looks, ineffect, more furry and natural than Van Eyck s . I t was for effects li k e thesethat the found ers oflmpressionism n nin etee nt h - centmy P aris ad mir edVelazquez above all other painters of the past.

To sec and observe nature w ith eve r-fi·csh eyes, to discover and enjoyeve r-new ha rmon ies of co lour s and lig h ts, had become the essent ial taskof th e paint er. In tllis new zeal, t h e great ma ste rs of Catholic Europefound th e m scl ves at one with the paint ers on the other sid e of th epolitica l ba rrier, the great artists of th e Protestant Neth erland s

Documents

Ernst Gobrich - Vision and Visions (Ch. 19)