Friedländer, Genuine and Counterfeit Experiences of a Connoisseur (1930)

8/6/2019 Friedlnder, Genuine and Counterfeit Experiences of a Connoisseur (1930)

1/120


2/120

750.4 F91gKeep Your Card inThis Pocket

Books will be issued only on presentation of properlibrary cards.

Unless labeled otherwise, books may be retainedfor two weeks. Borrowers finding books marked, de-faced or mutilated are expected to report same atlibrary desk; otherwise tibe last borrower will be heldresponsible for all imperfections discovered.The card holder is responsible for all books drawnon this card.

Penalty for over-due books 2c a day plus cost ofnotices.Lost cards and change- of residence must be re-

ported promptly.

Public LibraryKansas City, Mo.

KeepYour Card inThis PocketCO., K. 0., MO.


3/120

,*


4/120


5/120


6/120


7/120

ANDCOUNTERFEITEXPERIENCES OF A CONNOISSEUR

BYMAX J. FRIEDLANDER

Translated byCARL VON HONSTETTand LENORE PELHAM

ALBERT & CHARLES BONIMCMXXX NEW YORK


8/120

LBERT & CHARLES BONI, INC.NEW YORK

MANUFACTURED IN U. S. BY H. WOLFF ESTATE, NEW YORK


9/120

CONTENTS

FOREWORD 7CONCERNING THE OPINION OF EXPERTS . . 9ON THE RESTORING OF OLD PICTURES . . 23THE FORGERY OF OLD PICTURES .... 35THE PICTORIAL AND THE PICTURESQUE . . 55FORM AND COLOR 65ORIGINALITY 75STYLE AND MANNER 85DEVELOPMENT AND INFLUENCE .... 97


10/120


11/120

FOREWORD

EIGHT articles, five of which have comeout in the magazine "Kunst und Kiinst-ler," (Art and Artist) appear herebundled together as a book and with atitle. Although having different pointsof departure, they belong together, all ofthem centering around the question ofgenuineness.The harassed reader may wonder that

I, at times, make so much ado about lan-guage, I ask him to reflect that the onlybridge between us is one of words. More-over, in looking at a thing, we measurewhat we see in concepts, and conceptscan be expressed in words only. Ourlanguage is an heritage which we mustearn in order to possess; we only get be-

7


12/120

FOREWORDyond our forefathers when we extendand shift the track of words on which theconcepts roll along.


13/120

CONCERNING THE OPINIONOF EXPERTS


14/120


15/120

COMPLAINTS about expert opinion are In-creasing. A picture now can scarcely besold unless It is accompanied by a slip onwhich somebody or other assures us thatthe picture is the work of this or thatmaster. Many dealers, particularly thosewho are well informed and conscientious,feel that this custom is a burden and adisgrace.

If a Wit wished to score existing condi-tions, he could find nothing better as atext than the situation which has recentlycome to light in the course of a law suit inHamburg. Somewhere there sat a gentle-man who called himself an art scholar andwho, for so much an hour, wrote authen-tications for pictures which he had neverseen and even, for pictures which hadn't

11


16/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITas yet been painted. No authority atotally unknown name. Nevertheless, thetestimonials he signed had the desiredeffect, if only in the slums of the art trade,where these forgeries were handled.

I do not wish to put into the same classthis man of doubtful integrity and thosegentlemen who, through scholarly re-search have earned positions of authority;who are known, and rightly, as connois-seurs in their own spheres, and fromwhom reptitable dealers secure authenti-cations. I assume rather that they judgeaccording to the best of their knowledgeand conscience, and that they know whatthey are about. But even in the mostfavorable cases, the business of giving ex-pert opinions, in the form which it hasassumed during the last few years, hasdubious consequences. This is bad forscholarship because the contact with busi-ness is detrimental. But it is also bad for

12


17/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITthe quality of the collections and, finally,for the ethics of the trade.How was it formerly? How has theexpert opinion acquired such weight andsuch significance?

Formerly the collector, even if he hadtaste of his own, was glad to be advisedby someone well versed in the field. Hewould perhaps maintain a friendly con-tact with a connoisseur whose judgmenthe valued and whom he interested in thegrowth of his collection. Not infre-quently the dealers themselves were theconfidantes of their customers and madeit a point of honor to prove themselvesworthy of this trust. True, they still hada rich store to draw from and could beparticular.

For more than one reason this healthyrelationship has crumbled away. In thefirst place, scholarship has become sospecialized that even the best informeddealers can no longer keep pace with the

13


18/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITexperts. Secondly, the good and authenticworks of art have become more rare,while the number of dealers and agentshas increased so that the competition inbuying and selling, the struggle for goodsand the struggle for customers have be-come more acute. Thirdly, foreign ele-ments have forced their way into thefraternity of dealers, since aristocrats,ladies, poor sons of rich houses, are eagerlyjoining in, usually people who do nottrouble themselves about the purity of afirm name because they do not possess anyfirm name. Fourthly, prices have risen andthe difference in price between differentworks of art has risen even higher, whileat the same time the dealers have grownpoorer. Therefore the risk in the businesshas dangerously increased. Finally therehas come the Americanization of themarket. The man in Detroit or Toledo,to whom a picture is offered by mail, doesnot approach the art dealer, still less the

14


19/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITconnoisseur; the dealer approaches him.He is suspicious, uncertain, and has a hardtime forming his own judgment. Thedealer or agent combats doubts with au-thentications. The man in Toledo does notknow much about European authorities.Those scholars whose names he reads underthe authentications are all alike to him,therefore he prefers the optimistic yes-sayers. The dealers who communicate di-rectly with the American collectors havea natural interest in elevating their -oblig-ing experts to the position of authorities.One can guess how difficult the rela-

tions must be which spring up betweendealers and connoisseurs, regardless, orperhaps not exactly regardless, of whetherthe authentications are made out as afavor, for a fee, or on a commission basis.In any case, a piece of paper comes be-tween the collector and the connoisseur.The collector believes that he can dis-

pense with the exchange of ideas with ex-15


20/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITperienced connoisseurs since their wisdomis delivered to him in black and white onbuying the picture.The dealer passes the burden of the

heavy responsibility to the expert. For-merly he had to look at the picturessharply and form his own judgment, be-cause he alone guaranteed them. Now, incase of an error, the seller washes his handsof the affair, and his expert is of course notheld financially responsible for the mis-take. Therefore the responsibility hasbeen precariously split up between moral-ity and scholarship on one side and busi-ness on the other. The dealer no longerhas any real inducement to strive seriouslyafter connoisseurship, since his opinion isof little or no importance.The expert opinion has grown up on

the ground of a silly overestimation of theimportance of the artist's name and has inturn strengthened this superstition. Sinceusually in the authentications nothing is

16


21/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITestablished except the artist's name, thenaiVe collector fancies that it dependsonly on that, that the name alone deter-mines the value of the work of art. Notinfrequently the deals are closed by letter,without inspection, and only on the basisof the authentication.

So long as it is a question of famousnames, the delusion of the collector isunderstandable. Rembrandt, the man inToledo tells himself,.was a great master,therefore a recognized work of his handmust, under all circumstances be valuable.But it is not only a question of famousnames, but strangely enough, of a namejust by itself. People do not seem to graspthe fact that every picture, even the mostmiserable sham, was painted by some per-son; that every person has a name andthat it is usually nothing but an accidentif this name is known. If the scholar says:"this is a splendid south German pictureof the period around 1460," dealer and

17


22/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITcollector turn away disappointed. But ifBe thinks he has discovered a second pic-ture by the same painter, whom he investswith a name of his own making; if he says

this picture is by the "Master of theSaint Francis" then dealer and collectorare reasonably satisfied, although theywould prefer a real name, no matter howobscure.

In this way, art scholarship has becomean economically productive activity, andthere are even scholars who profit by it.

These intimations surely suffice toarouse the call for reform. But what is tobe done? The State could perhaps forbidits officials to give expert opinions, butwhat would be gained by that? The deal-ers would from necessity approach otherexperts, and there is no reason to supposethat the authentications would then bemore cautious or correct, or that thedanger, which is rooted more in the situa-

18


23/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITtion itself than in the persons involved init, would be decreased.Some have suggested an organization,

government regulation. But nothingwould be improved by that. On the con-trary, the official stamp on the authenti-cation would invest the opinion with afalse legitimacy. The State ought not toassume the responsibility for its appointee,Dr. Miiller recognizing a picture cor-rectly. Moreover the government couldnot eliminate unofficial, unsworn "ex-perts. 5 * It would also be beyond its powerto cause the collectors and dealers to trustits sworn experts. The State cannot investscholars with authority. That reputationupon which the validity of the authenti-cation rests is hard to acquire and cannotbe obtained through scholarly achieve-ment alone. It is also hard to lose, due toinertia.The business of giving expert opinions

can probably not be stamped out, but its19


24/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITfangs can be drawn through the enlight-enment of the collectors. It should behammered into them by every possiblemeans not to overestimate authentica-tions. I shall address a few principles tothe collectors in the hope that they mayhave some effect:

L Trust your own eyes, study pic-tures carefully yourselves, striveto become connoisseurs.

2. Go to the dealers, look at whatthey have, do not wait for offers.Turn to well-informed dealerswho cherish the honor of theirbusiness.

3. Do not overestimate the signifi-cance of the artist's name. Thereare some excellent pictures whosecreators are unknown.

4. The opinions regarding artists restupon more or less certain guess-work. The positive way in whichmany people testify is nothing

20


25/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITbut self deception of the expert,agreement, sometimes mere bluff.

5. Many pictures are badly pre-served. Nothing is said about ttiatin the authentications. The valueof a painting is, to a great degree,dependent upon its condition.

6. Seek intercourse with connois-seurs. In direct exchange of ideaswith them you will learn morethan there is on the papershanded you by dealers or agents.In this way you can explode thatmutually protective relationwhich has developed betweendealers and scholars*


26/120


27/120

ON THE RESTORINGOF OLD PICTURES


28/120


29/120


30/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITpicture has been varnished and revar-nished. These layers of varnish, whichmake the painting dull, often beyond rec-ognition, can be removed, but no amountof cleaning can remove the dark residueof old dirt and old varnish which is em-bedded in the uneven body of paint andin the cracks.The work of the restorer is useful and

gratifying so long as it consists in uncov-ering and reviving the picture, in remov-ing disfiguring additions; not in actuallyrecreating the original condition, butrather in making visible as much of theoriginal as is still extant. The restorerfurthermore preserves what remains ofthe picture and prevents future decay.

In many cases the original is preservedneither in its complete size nor in itsformer fullness and vigor. This often firstbecomes apparent in the cleaning or inthe regeneration of the varnish. Parts ofthe paint have been chipped or scaled off;

26


31/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITafter the painting-over is removed, holesappear. The drawing and modeling proveto have partially disappeared, to have beenrubbed off or cleaned away. What then?"What shall the restorer do about the sadlyfragmentary condition which he has, ofcourse, not produced, but which he hasbrought to light? If he does nothing, heruns the risk of being accused of damag-ing the work and diminishing its value.

Dare he replace what is lost by fillingin and repairing?

This question will be answered "yes"or "no" according to the point of view ofthe one who is asked. The work of artis a document for the scholar, a source ofpleasure for the amateur and an object ofvalue for the owner.

That the scholar will answer the ques-tion with a sharp "No/* there can be nodoubt. In his eyes, every restorationwhich goes beyond cleaning, preservingand uncovering is a piece of counterfeit-

27


32/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITing whether successful or not. Indeed,logically he must regard the skillful andconsequently deceptive repair as moredamaging and dangerous than the unsuc-cessful and therefore easily recognizable.He wants to see as much as has been pre-served of what the artist created, and herevolts against being left in uncertaintyregarding that which is lacking.The connoisseur judges from a less firm

point of view. Of course he too wouldlike to see the authentic original, free ofany trimmings. He seeks Memling's art,not the restoration of Miiller, but, on theother hand, he fears that faulty spots,holes, conspicuous defects and disturb-ances of the continuity may spoil hisenjoyment of it. In this dilemma mostconnoisseurs probably recognize the rightof the restorer to fill in and repair, provid-ing that he works in the spirit of the oldmaster and is able to recreate what is no

28


33/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITlonger there. But this is demanding some-thing impossible from the restorer.The task is technically, and from the

point of style unsolvable. Memlingworked with certain pigments and ma-terials; the restorer with others. And evenIf the restorer could proceed with exactlythe same technique as Memling, he wouldstill not be in a position to repair what ispreserved of the original because time hasbeen at work on it since Memling. Thatwhich is made is never exactly like thatwhich has grown.The restorer cannot break away from

the perspective of his time. No matterhow well informed he is, his efforts atcopying and imitating will never ex-actly coincide with the style, the characterand the expression of the old master. Theywill always betray themselves by mis-understandings. Because he senses thehopeless pedantry of his work, he will beinclined to make the new resemble the

29


34/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITold by darkening and clouding it over inan effort to cover up what he has done.This mixing of true and false elements,this opaque fog precipitates as slimyphrases in the literature of art.The connoisseur's apprehension of andaversion from all repaired restorations will

become stronger as he gathers more ex-perience and as his artistic knowledge de-velops.

After the scholar has won the connois-seur over to his side, they betake them-selves to- the collector, the dealer, thedirector of the gallery.And now the affair becomes serious.The question Is shifted from the realm oftheoretical deliberations into that of prac-tical decisions. Only he who owns a workof art or who, as museum director, exer-cises the rights of the owner can giveorders to the restorer and prescribe thelimits of his interference and the methodsof the restoration.

30


35/120


36/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITrepairing is not appreciated for itself, butonly in so far as it is guaranteed to be in-visible. The subjective, individual, time-bound taste of the collector, the dealerand the restorer are drawn into coopera-tion in a very dubious way. The pictureof Memling is so treated that it appears tobe faultlessly preserved, that it conformsin appearance to expectations and cor-responds to the mistaken, of courseideas of Memling's art.

It will not be easy to abolish this dis-honest habit of forging as long as picturesare bought and sold. Nevertheless, if itwere thinkable that the obsession aboutthe appearance of old pictures be aban-doned, the situation might be reversed.Let us picture what would happen if afanatical scholar, as director of a museum,were to show the pictures which have beenentrusted to his care bare as they are,without supplements, restorations, freefrom retouching and varnish, if the habit

32


37/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITo seeing pictures in this condition shouldspread into the circles of collectors anddealers. Idols would fall, values be trans-formed, judgment become objective,sober and pure altogether a hard cure.

Just as the fragmentary condition ofantique sculptures satisfies the scholar asa sign of genuineness without offendingthe connoisseur, so in the future we mightlook at even partially destroyed paintingswith a quickened imagination, whileviewing the beautified and restored oneswith suspicion and displeasure.


38/120


39/120

THE FORGERY OF OLD PICTURES


40/120


41/120

THE supply of purchasable works by theold masters is becoming smaller every yearbecause some of the pieces which appearon the market go into public collectionsand are thus forever withdrawn from thetrade. Therefore the chase after thosethings which appear desirable to contem-porary taste is becoming more heated.Prices are being pushed up, particularlysince the circle of amateurs is steadilywidening. The decline in the old countriesof the passion to collect, which Is primar-ily the result of economic distress, is amplyoffset by the rising interest of museumsand individuals outside of Europe andparticularly by the desire of wealthyAmericans to buy. Since the demand isgreater than the supply at least in cer-

37


42/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITtain fields the temptation to forgery isgrowing.

It has become both easier and more diffi-cult to manufacture pictures that seemold masterpieces. The prospect of forgingsuccessfully and of deceiving the collectorhas improved, inasmuch as knowledge ofthe history of art has spread even into thecircles of the forgers. The understandingof the technique and the style of the oldmasters has increased, but for the samereason and about to the same degree thesuccess of the forger is made difficult be-cause the detecting eyes of collectors havegained as much in insight as the swindlershave gained in refinement.Whoever wishes to produce a Memling

without being Memling, or in otherwords, passes off a picture as "genuine"confronts a precarious task. In the firstplace, he does not possess the pigments andmaterials which Memling employed, andthe technical procedure of the old master

38


43/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITis a secret. With his materials he mustattempt to produce that which Memlingachieved with other materials. What hedoes becomes even more unnatural andhopeless because, not only does he have towork as Memling did, but also in the spiritof his time. In the course o the years thelayers of paint in the old picture havealtered. Characteristics of age must besimulated, wrinkles added and that whichhas come into being through a naturalprocess must be artificially produced.A sign of genuineness is the crack for-mation of the paint and the gesso whichunderlies the paint. They are a bane tothe forger, and he employs cunning arti-fices to deceive the connoisseur, whogives these signs very attentive consider-ation. The simulation of cracks by draw-ing on the new paint with a hard pencilor scratching with a pointed instrument ispracticed by the harmless restorer, buthardly by the technically advanced


44/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITforger. The network of cracks drawnwith the hand is so clearly distinguishableby its lines and appearance from the"genuine" cracks that the eye aidedmerely by a pocket lens can with difficultybe deceived in this way. The forgers havediscovered a method of producing some-thing similar to real crack formation.They coat the new paint with a lacquerwhich, contracting when heated, cracksand pulls the underlying paint apart. Inthis process, however, the gesso remainsflat and smooth, whereas the genuinecrack formation proceeds from this base.So one need only uncover some spot inthe base by rubbing away the color to rec-ognize in the superficial crack formationthe work of the forger.The use of a genuinely cracked gesso

from an old picture makes a much moredangerous counterfeit. There are plentyof worthless and badly preserved old pic-tures which may be obtained for a little

40


45/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITmoney. The forger who uses an old panelas the basis of his counterfeit has securedfor himself a considerable advantage inthe secret contest with the expert. Theforger faces the task of so covering withnew paint the genuine gesso which he hascompletely or partially exposed that thecrack formation remains visible. To at-tain this end he daubs the small surfacesbetween the cracks with his brush or withtransparent paint. The old panel stillbears remnants of the original painting,the outline of the drawing and parts ofthe genuine paint. The forger can eitherclean off the old paint or let it entirely orpartially remain. In the second instancehe begins to feel himself a restorer. Sincethe amount preserved can vary consider-ably, the boundary between forgery andrestoration is questionable. The decisivething is the sentiment, the morality, thetendency of the work. The restorer pre-serves with anxious care and supplements

41


46/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITonly in case of necessity. The forger, onthe other hand, works consciously underthe delusion that he can do it at least aswell as the old master. He thoughtlesslyremoves preserved parts which disturbhim in the completion of his work andtransforms the ruins of the old picture,which he handles by no means tenderly,into the new creation which his taste con-siders perfect.Such half-breeds form the most dubious

parts of the material that the history ofart has to deal with.Grown old and pious, the forger works

as restorer, and his forgeries are innocuousin comparison with his restorations which,being technically much more cunningthan the accomplishments of the innocentrestorers, irritate research extremely.The indicated procedures may be rec-

ognized by a sharp scrutiny of the ma-terial, an observation similar to that ofthe natural scientist. In many cases the

42


47/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITusual testing with alcohol, which dissolvesthe new pigment but not the old, maybring about the discovery. But this ex-periment is not infallible. The forgers areprepared for precisely this kind of inves-tigation and have found means to protectthemselves by using pigments which arenot soluble in alcohol.

If the counterfeit is not distinguishablefrom the genuine work by technical tests,it may still offend the sensitive connois-seur by its failure to comply with thedemands of style. He who undertakes torestore a "Memling" ventures upon ahopeless task, for the spiritual attitude ofthe forger is different from that of theartist, who created honestly, naively andspontaneously. This difference must be-come discernible in the visible form evenwhen the imitator has, by unusual skilland penetrating study; become familiarwith the essence of the model he wishes tocopy just as imitated handwriting devi-

43


48/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITates from the natural. The artist createsspontaneously, and is subjectively free;the forger works arbitrarily and is boundby his subject. All counterfeits betraythemselves, by a pedantically anxiousprocedure. The forger does not dareabandon himself, dare not follow his nat-ural taste, but must work with cold cal-culation, painful caution and a squintingglance. He has a prospect of success solong as he copies exactly; every assertionof independence ensnares him in danger.

If, for example, he wishes to depict theclothing a trifle freely it becomes evidentthat he knows hopelessly little about thedress of the past. He probably knows inoutline, in appearance, from old pictures,the hat, as it was worn about 1520, buthe does not know how the inside of itlooked, how it was sewed and constructed.If he changes the position of the head, ifhe wishes to show a view of the hat whichdeviates only slightly from that shown in

44


49/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITthe model, he reveals his ignorance of cir-cumstances, since none of us has any ex-perience with the appearances of the pastother than the mirror of art has shown us.If the counterfeit is nothing more thana correct copy it will be easily unmaskedby a comparison with the original. There-fore the forgers prefer to choose a methodof combination, composing a seeminglyoriginal picture by copying it from sev-eral examples. Thereby they venture intothe danger of uniting heterogenous, styl-istically disharmonious parts into a con-flicting whole.A head after the style of Jan van Eyck

copies in certain parts a well-known origi-nal; with it there may be a landscapebackground in the manner of Rogers vander Weyden, the hands, strongly agitated,are taken from a painting by Joos vanCleve. The man has on a hat such as wasworn in 1515 and wears a full beard

45


50/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITwhich, taboo in the fifteenth century,only became the fashion in 1520.Even before one has recognized the

derivation of the parts and can prove thefraud, one feels in such inorganic compo-sitions that something is wrong, that co-ordination is lacking, that technique,representation and perspective do not fiteach other. All independent work of theforger shows a misunderstanding, just asevery combination results in a discrep-ancy.

If the forger fills in an old panel whichhas come into his hands in a damaged con-dition or which he has cleaned off in orderto supplant the crude genuine outlinewith a finer one, contradictions of a subt-ler sort arise which are comparativelyhard to detect. The crack formation inthe gesso is genuine and even, in certainplaces conspicuously visible. In otherplaces, where the forger has modeled themcarefully the cracks are not apparent at

46


51/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITall, are less clear or are of an entirely dif-ferent nature. The "improving" workextends first to the heads, which, carefullyrounded with glazed shadows, smartenedup, opaque and with an unavoidably mod-ern expression stand next to transparentdrapery, in which the old paint is pre-served and not altered by azurite. Genuinepaintings are consistently good or medi-ocre or weak, but such hybrids areconspicuous by their irregular quality,whereby genuine crudeness, placed nextto false fineness, creates a painful and be-wildering impression.

My remarks seem to lead to the conclu-sion that a connoisseur can not be deceivedby forgeries, and that under all conditionsthe organically created work can be dis-tinguished from the fake.From time to time errors of distin-

guished art scholars are welcomed bymalicious lovers of sensation. From suchhappenings the laity conclude, not with-

47


52/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITout satisfaction, that there is no reliableprofessional knowledge in the sphere ofart. A coarse thought process is not ableto reckon with possibilities. For the stand-ing of the connoisseur the decisive thingis the percentage of correct to false judg-ments. Infallibility should not be ex-pected even doctors and judges err.That the single error of the art scholarthreatens to throw him and his professioninto disrepute which in turn results in astubborn resistance to the admission of amistake may have its foundation in theparticular nature of the art judgment.The art judgment can not be subject tocontrol or proof. The layman has no con-

ception of how it is made. It is acceptedon faith out of confidence in the author-ity. The connoisseur comes on the scenelike a magician, whom the mob, flittingfrom credulence to suspicion, is only tooready to expose as a charlatan.

Experience shows that reputable con-48


53/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITnoisseurs have usually fallen the victimsof those forgeries whose style was new.That is, the first products of a forger arethe most dangerous. Obviously it is easierto observe: "this Is an example of thattype of work which has become sus-picious33 than to say: "this cannot begenuine." The positive characteristics ofthe forgery betray themselves more readilythan the negative.Our eye is not always sharply focussed,our suspicion not constantly wakeful.Outward circumstances attending the ex-hibition of the work of art can diminishthe critical inclination. If the work is in-troduced by a reputable dealer, at a highprice, and with convincing certainty, theconnoisseur easily forgets to question itsgenuineness.The sight of an electric arclight can

inspire in one a lyric poem to the moon,but only so long as one fancies that thelamp is the moon. Common sense here

49


54/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITinterjects: "therefore the impression isnothing more than imagination/5 Actu-ally the tremendously complicated processof aesthetic enjoyment is, to an unex-pectedly high degree, determined byprejudices, and presupposes a spiritualdisposition which originates from formerexperiences of looking at things.The delight in the creations of the old

masters contains historical knowledge,pleasure in culture, respect for antiquity.The master's name arouses sensationswhich flood the given complex of formand color and reduce the sharpness of ob-servation. The impression which genuineMemlings have evoked and which lives inthe memory can, when visual alertness issuspended, be awakened by a forgery.Strangely enough, forgeries before beingunmasked have often aroused a high de-gree of enthusiasm and the loud and gen-eral applause which they were accordedcontributed to dim the critical eye.

50


55/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITNo matter how successfully the art

scholar may have labored to enter intothe manner of the past, no matter howsincere and deep his love for the old mas-ters, the gulf of time can never be entirelybridged. Something harshly foreign, notagreeable to our taste remains operativein the world of forms created by ourancestors. This, however, is seldom con-ceded. The forgery, a contemptiblenothing when once seen through, possessesbefore its disclosure a double charm; it issupposedly the work of a great and famousold master, and is also the product of acontemporary, whose taste is akin to ourown. For many, the false Memling maybe the first Memling they have ever trulyadmired.The experienced connoisseur who has

attained a position of authority, who feelshis own preeminence and does not needto fear further criticism loses easily inthe routine of professional activities that

51


56/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITfear of error which stimulates his atten-tlveness and preserves the keen edge of hisobservation. The master dare not ceaseto feel himself a student. Having, throughexperience reached the point where heimagines himself safe, he is very close tothe danger of falling a victim to decep-tion of a new sort.

Since the ability of the connoisseur de-pends upon the intensity of his visualexperiences, upon the clarity and distinct-ness of his memories, the professional ex-pert is in danger of crowding the limitedcapacity of his memory with hybridimages. This is inevitable under the cir-cumstances because he has to look at manymore mediocre, badly preserved and du-bious pictures than at good and incontest-able masterpieces. If he has erred and hasnot become aware of his error, the falseimage poisons his pictorial fancy. He thenapproaches later pieces with a warpedstandard, so to speak. He will only remain

52


57/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITa match for the forgers in the constantstruggle with them if he time and againsteels and refreshes his judgment by un-tiring study of undoubtedly genuine mas-terpieces.


58/120


59/120

THE PICTORIAL AND THEPICTURESQUE(Das Maleriscbe)


60/120


61/120

WHAT we need is a vocabulary. The ob-scurity in art books has reached the pointwhere the reader no longer reads, but atbest takes in the shower o words as hewould music. "When the author is still atpains to formulate his impression, he issatisfied to find words which are fixed inhis own mind as symbols of his optic ex-periences. But he is usually not consciousof the heavy obligation to choose com-monly understood symbols. After all,words are nothing but agreements. Theagreement upon which all understandingdepends must be made, then be strictlyobserved and perhaps revised from timeto time.

This is, of course, a difficult task. Thelimitation of a vocabulary stands out in

57


62/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITsharp contrast to the infinity of visiblethings. The cover of words, so to speak, istoo short. The various terms, pulled thisway and that, have become soft, thin, andworn through use and abuse.A vocabulary is needed and could helpa bit with definitions. This is not so

necessary for technical terms of foreignorigin. They do not cause much trouble.Once explained and understood, they per-form their service by remaining withinfixed limits. Such a vocabulary as I havein mind would primarily be concernedwith the general concepts which, beingvague and empty, are much more apt tobe misunderstood, since the unsuspectingreader, not anticipating any difficulties,does not stop to reflect about them. Con-cepts like artist, form, light, space, quality,fantasy, which are the most commonlyused, should be studied with reference totheir meaning and its possible changes.The several meanings of a word should be

58


63/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITdefined and separated from each other.

In analyzing the concept "picturesque"(malerische) I shall give an example ofwhat I mean.

In the vernacular, an appearance worthseeing, which stimulates and occupies oureye is called picturesque. If we look at theway the word is built, that which it isphysically possible to paint is "paintable,"but that which is adapted to being paintedis "pictorial" or "picturesque. 53 Whenused with reference to the object in hand,it designates the motif which would begratifying to the painter. Again, whenused with reference to the work of art itdenotes that which the painter with theavailable meajtis has successfully repre-sented, according to the cannons of styleof his art.At this point the concept splits up, de-

pending upon whether by "painting" weunderstand one or another mode of ex-pression. I put "painting" in contrast to

59


64/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITrepresenting that which is inartistic aswell as mathematical, architectural, plas-tic and, in a narrow sense, graphic. Thezig-zag profile of high mountains is pic-turesque, although it can be depicted witha sharp slate pencil. But in the other andnarrower sense, a conflagration, a flamingblaze depicted by brush and color in sur-faces and spots, with soft transitions ispicturesque and pictorial.The apple is picturesque and pictorial

in contrast to the billiard ball, the tree incontrast to the column, generally speak-ing, the work of nature in contrast to theproduct of man. All balls are alike inshape. No apple is like any other. Theincidental, accidental shape is picturesque,as compared with the shape based uponcalculation.

In the realm of mathematical figuresthe oblong is more pictorial than thesquare, the oval is more pictorial than thecircle. The unexpected shape, suggesting

60


65/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITfreedom and spontaneity satisfies thecuriosity of the eye.

"We experience the picturesque appear-ance in "moving." Movement, however,cannot be depicted directly except in themovie. Still, the picture of the worldaround us is picturesque as a result ofaction, since It is determined by growth,by natural events and by the play of light.We perceive in the picturesque form thetrace and effect of movements which thenervous and high spirited observer feelsand tries to express. The sea is more pic-turesque than the land. All that existsappears much more as a product of thepast, transforming itself Into somethingnew if it presents itself in rich, multi-articulate forms.The extreme point, the ne plus ultra

of picturesque objects is to be found inchaotic nature. The artist in seeing her,no matter upon what stage, in what wayor with what means, rationalizes and

61


66/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITregulates her at the same time. In thisprocess, nature becomes, through manygradations, less "picturesque." Natural-ism in reciprocal effect with the longingfor irrational hidden things is a strongmotive force of artistic development.Two deeply rooted needs struggle witheach other, namely this delight in thegiven richness and that intellectual obli-gation to fix the flowing picture of theworld, to recognize in it the immutablelaw. The sense for order is fighting withdesire of the eye for adventure.

I shall state a few antithetical pairs:Line SurfaceType IndividualityAnticipation AccidentStylization ObservationReason SensationClassic RomanticSeriousness PlayIn all these cases the notion of the pic-

62


67/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITturesque inclines toward the concept onthe right.

Let us suppose that the primordial mo-tivating force of all artistic endeavor isboredom, just as it is that of all play. Ifwe imagine how urgent the need wouldbe for filling and enlivening empty timewith rhythm and music, and empty spacewith visible intersections, we understandthe driving sensation of pleasure which isfreed in the "picturesque."

If these suggestions have made distinctthe infinite inclusiveness of the concept"picturesque" ("malerische") the authorwill handle it with care. It should neverbe used absolutely, but always relatively,and it should always be made clear eitherexplicitly or implicitly in what sense it ismeant.The same is true for other concepts.


68/120


69/120

FORM AND COLOR


70/120


71/120

"WiTH language we have also inherited theunderstanding and error it implies. Witha prejudice which is preserved in the cus-tomary antithesis of form and color wedelude ourselves that we may see colorwithout form or form without color.Color and form do not bear to one anotherthe relation of two qualities, but ratherthey are like the quality and quantity ofa substance. Our eyes take in color alone.That which we call form is the extensionof color, its location in the plane of vision.

If, as the thinking person always does,we seek a being, a thing, beneath the ap-pearance, beneath the localized color, ifwe consider the phenomenon as a report,then the location of the color requiresmore attention than its shade. In looking

67


72/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITat things, we primarily observe the cir-cumference which describes form andbody, the border rather than that whichit borders.When I have looked at a red circle, can

my memory retain more vividly the circleor the red? The further I am removed intime from the visual experience, the moreeasily I succeed in analyzing the memoryof the picture. I can forget the qualityor the quantity according to whether Iam mathematically interested or sensu-ously receptive. One should speak of formand color only in theory, and consider thata complete elimination of "color" in favorof "form" is not successful even in fan-tasy. It will only be possible to alter arbi-trarily, to neutralize, denature the imagein our memory by substituting black orgray upon a white background for thecolor impressions we originally received.

Suppose we go back in the history oflooking at things into prehistoric times

68


73/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITand try to imagine its course over thou-sands of years. At first, and over longperiods of time, needs and practical wantssharpened the eye. Man first perceivedsigns and retained the memory of visualexperiences to enable him to escape dan-gerous animals, and to select wood suitablefor this or that purpose. The ques-tion which prehistoric man most put tohis eye was whether a certain animal couldkill him or he it. He learned to measuresize and distance.

For the hunter as well as the hunted theapparent form of pursued or fleeing crea-tures was more significant than theapparent color, if only because the lightconditions more strongly vary the color-ing than the outline.

Therefore the recognition and knowl-edge of things and man's mastery of thephysical world have been promoted bythe observation and standardization ofmeasures.

69


74/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITCivilized man becomes, by force of

habit accustomed to seeing black if onlybecause through much reading he receivesa training in the abstract and dead color,black on white.The charm of the visual in itself, apartfrom what it could tell about the nature

of things has, in various forms, alluredthe senses and emotions of human beings.The germs of aesthetic observation, thedelight in looking at beautiful objects, thebeginnings of practicing art, the Inclina-tion to ornament and decorate are allaroused by the predilection for artificialarbitrarily shaped colors. Colors

wereplayed with; they were not taken seriouslyas was form, to master which man hadhad a more rigid schooling through thestruggle for survival.The visual impression came to be di-

vided into its constituent parts, form andcolor, since man like a playful childdabbed with color while he concerned

70


75/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEIThimself with form as a measuring adult.Following the precept: divide and rule,man took possession of the visual world*Form only unites with color in the last

stages in the life of mankind just as in thedevelopment of individual painters, Thenonly is appearance perceived in its en-tirety by a simultaneous realization of theboundary as well as that which it bounds.Exactly for that reason the objection tothe antithesis of form and color is not justidle playing with words but a young ideastruggling to find linguistic expression.

In the beginning and in earlier stages, inhandicrafts as well as in academic theory,appearance has been divided up. Form andcolor were studied and reproduced eitherone after the other, side by side, or inde-pendent from each other. The first stepin teaching and in the creative process wasto draw, that is, to outline in some neutral,detached color and then to fix the degreeof light by hatching in or shading, finally

71


76/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITto put on the pigments, to fit them in or,one might even say, to lay them on thetop of it all. The history of the art ofpainting may be regarded as a gradualovercoming of the analytical way of look-ing at things. Just as little as one couldhave attained any fruitful biologicalknowledge so long as one presumed to beable to distinguish between body andsoul, could one comprehend without prej-udice that which he sees so long as heseparates form and color.

Let us compare a picture by Jan vanEyck with a picture by Cezanne. Janvan Eyck compares well with any one inbrilliancy, splendour and expressivestrength of color shading, in exactitudeand refinement of draftsmanship. Nowif we state that he observed form on theone hand and color on the other and notas did Cezanne, in one act, colored formor formed color, we do in no way pointtowards an individual deficiency but

72


77/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITrather to a limitation of the period whichnot even the independent genius of a mas-ter could escape. A Madonna by Jan vanEyck, which is 10 cm. high and thereforelooked at as though from a great distance,wears a flaming red dress which, from thelocation of the figure, ought to be muchpaler and more neutral. On the otherhand, a tree trunk painted by Cezannewhich, according to its thickness in thepicture, is seen from a certain distance,shows exactly that color which it wouldpossess under the given conditions of loca-tion. The higher truth, the organic unitywhich has been reached at Cezanne's stage,rests in the fact that finally that dualisticway of seeing, which reigns in the handi-crafts and academic education has beenabandoned.The practice of art following its own

laws became more and more dissociatedfrom other intellectual and spiritual ef-forts. Its tendency to lose all relationship

73


78/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITwith sensuous reality, a tendency whichwas caused by the analytical way of look-ing at things was, upon a late stage ofcivilization, checked by a new naivety.


79/120

ORIGINALITY


80/120


81/120

IN EVERYDAY parlance we pronounce, bythe outworn word "original" an evasivejudgment when a work of art has had aneffect which excites by its novelty. Wemay be struck by a form, a spectacle, ora combination which we imagine we areseeing for the first time. The judgment isempty, the praise faint; it is preliminary,since we say little regarding the nature ofthe creation which attracts us by itsstrangeness. We only state an impression,regarding the cause of which we are notclear ourselves and we lack experiencewhich would tell us whether the effectwill last and prove true.But the expression "original" has an-

other meaning which we do not use orat least should not use without being sure

77


82/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITabout the foundation of our impression,since it announces a final judgment, viz:"this work of art by its qualities guaran-tees the manner of creation which is char-acteristic of genuine productions." Thusthe noun an "original" is a label which isunequivocally the contrary of a copy orimitation.The word original in the aforesaid lim-

ited sense emphasizes a connection with abeginning, even if it warns against believ-ing that a creation comes out of nothing.Among the verbs: to make, to create,

to carry out, to produce, the first twoindicate nothing about any particularmanner of working, while the other twosuggest an act of moving something, ofaltering its location. The work of art, itis implied, must have been in existencesomewhere before the "originator" canbring it to light.The German language turns with veiled

doubt against the doctrine of the Bible78


83/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEIT"when it prefers the expression "Schopf-ung" (creation) for the process by whichthe world came into existence, since instrict orthodoxy it is supposed to havecome out of nothing. For "schopfen"means to alter the location of fluid matter.The matter was already in existence. Theartist is honored not a little by the appli-cation of the terms "creation" and *'tocreate" to his work. The philologist willprobably be able to show that the transferof such lofty, sublime and mystic wordsto human activities is of rather recentdate. It is probably as recent as the ideathat artistic work is different from anyother human activity, particularly quiteapart from science, scholarship and crafts-manship.Our view does not reach farther than

to the spring of creation. The moment ofstepping into the outside world we per-ceive to be the hour of birth. We watchonly the execution, since the begetting,

79


84/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITthe conceiving and the maturing havetaken place in the unfathomable womb ofthe Mothers.The work of art is original; it springs

from the organism of its originator. Ittherefore is peculiar to this artist and apart of him, so to speak. After havingcompleted its natural passage through anindividuality it steps forward into thedaylight, fresh, resplendent, and of a na-ture never before seen, to be greeted as"original"As originality, being a result of organic

creation, a mark of genuine birth, becamemore valuable to the spectators, thoseengaged in artistic work strove more in-tensely to achieve originality. This en-deavor entangled them in the paradox oftrying to look for something which, whensought, could not be found. The deter-mination to be different seduces an artistto imitate forms foreign to his own genius.Such forms seem peculiar to him; but no

80


85/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITartist finds the form which Is given himto use and is inescapably his as peculiar.Thus the endeavor to be original has be-come a Will-O-the-Wisp and a danger.It Impedes the natural unfolding of talentand by extravagant exaggeration it leadsto mannerism and sensationalism, to mani-fest peculiarities which least belong to thelegitimate possessions of the artist.

If, then, a pseudo originality has comeinto existence the language has good causeto split up the adjective and to invent an-other word ("original") to designate thegenuine originality, while using original("originell") to designate, if not the arti-ficial, at least the infinite number of casesin which the question of genuine original-ity must remain undecided. In reality thejudgment is often difficult. The artiststriving after originality will naturallyavoid outright Imitation. *He may evenhonestly search within himself, in hislonging for something particular. But the

81


86/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITgoal will appear to him as a coined form,and a form coined by someone else. Bygoing his predecessor one better, by turn-ing what he has done upside down, bybending and distorting, he will force asham originality.As the surest mark of genuineness, theinner unity of a piece of art guarantees tous that it has been nourished by the re-sources of one individual during the entireprocess of creation, from the conceptionto the last stroke of execution. The cer-tainty of organic connection will comeas a matter of course. The harmony ofthe parts with the whole, and of the partsto each other, the harmony of form andcontent quiets us because it gives us thefeeling that it could not be otherwise.The whole is permeated with rays comingfrom the center of a personality and it isdensely filled with the color and scent ofthe individual creator.

Indeed, the genius has ever inherited,82


87/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITabsorbed and selected before he produces.But while the imitator and the perfecttechnician work with what they havescraped together in the daylight of theirconsciousness, the true artist experiencesthis union of extraneous elements in therealm of subconscious emotion. It is withhim an early stage in the creative process.In his subterranean workshop it is so hotthat these elements melt until they are un-recognizable and a new form comes intobeing.

Logically, the demands which springfrom the concept of originality can neverbe fulfilled in a work of art. Geniusdwells in a human being who knows andplans. This endangers the purity of crea-tion. No artist produces his work as a treeproduces its fruit. In relation to his crea-tion, the originator is not only father andmother, but midwife as well.Even though I have not distinguished

two realms by a clear line of demarcation,83


88/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITthis analysis may prove helpful in makingvisible the top and bottom of a scale. Atone end there stands the genius, at theother the faker. In each case we haveto decide to what extent the original(originell) appearance rests upon original(original) creation.


89/120

STYLE AND MANNER


90/120


91/120

THE term manner which in colloquialspeech has various shades of meaning,when used technically by the art historianhas also many interpretations. It is nowonder that frequent misunderstandingsarise, since the writer's notion of theword is often entirely different from thereader's.

"Manner" in everyday language meansa rather suspicious way of behaving, anartificial, stilted, affected being, pose,over-ornamentation. An instructivechange of meaning can be traced here.Originally a term used by scholars, al-most synonymous with kind or species,this expression was sometimes used wherewe have become accustomed to speak ofstyle. One used to speak of "Maniera

87


92/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITgreca" o "Maniere gothique," of themanner of the engraving, meaning there-by types of form which are locally, tem-porally or technically limited. In relationto the value of a work of art, the conceptwas at first completely neutral. In collo-quial speech the word does not alwaysnecessarily contain an objection or a de-preciatory judgment. One speaks of"'genteel manners" to mean well educated,praiseworthy behavior.

There came a time when good trainingin the practice of art no longer enjoyed ahigh position. The gradual transforma-tion in the shade of this concept is con-nected with the development of thetheory of art. As creative force wassought in naivety, vision and fantasy, in-stead of in knowledge, tradition and taste,as the undisciplined growth became dis-tinguished from the artificially cultivatedproduct, as the mysterious power of theunconscious was discovered, a concept

88


93/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITwas needed to designate the form whichhad been created in a genuinely artisticprocess, as opposed to the studied, con-sciously developed, arbitrarily producedone. The word "style" displaces the word"manner," or rather lowers it.

Style means form. It implies apprecia-tion. Style is a river, manner, a canal.The thirteenth century built in the gothicstyle, the nineteenth in the gothic man-ner that is the way we express it today.In the vernacular we praise a man forhaving style, meaning that his qualities,his looks, his clothes, his behavior manifesta harmonious character which creates anaesthetically pleasing impression. Theharmony, the necessary sequence of theseveral manifestations or parts rest uponthe fact that an unhampered force flowsfrom the center of the personalitythrough the entire body, directing anddominating it. One can acquire good man-ners, One either has style or one hasn't.

89


94/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITThe type of style is determined by loca-

tion, time, individual and technical pro-cesses. One speaks of Roman or ofFrench style, of the style of Titian or ofthe style of the pointrel always with thefavorable prejudice that the perceptible,aesthetically appreciated form is the pic-torially fixed character of a period, aplace, a man or a technique.The distinction between style and man-

ner has gradually become pronounced,since, in judging works of art, it wasnoticed that the form had been created inone way or another. In the rough, twokinds of production were differentiated,the arbitrary and the spontaneous; speci-fically artistic action was expected in therealm of spontaneous creation, while ar-bitrary production was assumed to resultin imitations, unfounded, causeless androotless, the outgrowth of creative weak-ness.

Let us seek to express and describe the90


95/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITmarks of the genuine work of art and tostate more precisely the difference be-tween style and manner. We look forharmony, sincerity, unconcern, a free andrapid sweep, as the distinguishing charac-teristics of a spontaneous, emotionallygenuine mode of creation. And still, ob-servations are deceptive, because calcu-lating, artistically appreciative experienceis just as apt to produce these results as isthe creative force. Even the degree ofdeviation can be interpreted one way oranother. To be sure, the mannerist be-trays himself in that he does not achievehis purpose, does not persist in his en-deavor, falls back from the intended wayof expression into his natural one, letshimself go, changes his plans but sucha vacillation can easily be mistaken fora change dictated by organic develop-ment and a richly active fantasy. Thatwhich on a higher plane may be inter-preted as harmony, can, on a lower scale,

91


96/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITbetray pedantic monotony. The swifttempo which there shows a superabun-dance here bears witness to a superficialroutine. Eccentricity can spring fromthe vision of a genius, but it can also bethe result of the lust for the sensationaland the mania for novelty of a cold-blooded calculator.

Everything therefore depends upon thelevel. By that, however, we introduce anindex from which the scientist turns awayin horror. The question of level, of qual-ity, is answered according to the feelingof being convinced, according to thedepth of impression, the measure of thesensation of aesthetic pleasure. Depend-ing upon our ability and receptivecapacity we reach our conclusion spon-taneously and interpret the quality ac-cordingly.The judgment about the level is sub-

jective and changeable. Every generationdecides differently, K. Justi called El

92


97/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITGreco a mannerist. Today we considerthis Spaniard a naive genius. Also theartistic doctrine from which we havetaken the distinction between manner andstyle does not endure forever and mayeven now be no longer accepted. Nowthe label "manner" once it has become as-sociated with certain persons and periodscontinues to stick after the judgment haschanged. So it may happen that some-one declares: "If El Greco is a mannerist,then we shall honor this title andstrive for it, and if he created arbitrarily,very well, we shall contest your theoryand derive another from his works." Pi-casso, to my eye, shows the marks ofmannerism in pure cultivation, and doesnot inspire me even to the extent that Ishould start upon the attempt to reinter-pret such marks, even less to alter thetheory of art on his account. Others willfeel differently about Picasso.The concepts of style and manner, as

93


98/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITI have defined them upon the basis of acertain idea of the essence of artistic crea-tion, do not cover two different planes,but should rather be regarded as the upperand lower limits of one plane. One mayattempt to give every artist a place inthis field by ascertaining to what extenthe approaches either manner or style.There is no absolute style or absolutemanner, because all spiritual human ac-tivity is compounded of impulse and pur-pose, passion and conscious volition andbecause no clear line divides the consciousfrom the unconscious.

There is much talk about stylization asopposed to naturalistic forms. The art-ful, highly finished work is contrastedwith the naturalistic. This antithesis,which seems to contradict our exposition,rests upon errors. The voluntary andsubjectively naturalistic form leads tostyle, since seeing is not a passively me-chanical absorption, but an individually

94


99/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITselective action. That which, in the endappears as stylistic expression need not beplanned or consciously molded. The anti-thesis between stylization and natural-istic observation is not rooted in thecreative process as is the antithesis betweenmanner and style. We observe that whichis close to nature and that which isforeign to It in infinitely many degrees,because every creative master sees in hisown way. He who perceives the peculiarand the unusual produces an expressionwhich to the normal eye appears stylized.The mannerist, on the other hand, who,ambitious and experienced, wishes to givemore than he has, would like to seem morethan he is, despises what he sees, even con-siders it commonplace and, rather thanexpress it seizes upon that which has al-ready been expressed.

"Whether the work looks natural or un-natural no matter! Let us speak of styleas long as we believe the vision, but of

95


100/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITmanner wherever, on account of vanityor a feeling of inferiority, the form is notseen but somehow manufactured and far-fetched.


101/120

DEVELOPMENT AND INFLUENCE


102/120


103/120

OUR language is shot through withimages. Metaphors creep in everywhere,often hardly recognizable as such. Be-coming technical terms, they set them-selves up as authority over the personwho uses them.Whoever reflects sees that the expres-

sion "development" is supposed to de-scribe a hidden process, but does it onlyin a rather imperfect manner. Every timea human being develops, something dif-ferent happens, for which the rigid anddull word always presents the same image.The metaphor is a shot which does not

hit the bull's eye, a substitute, a solutionmore apparent than real. It is particu-larly evil because it renders a false satis-faction; it pretends to complete the inter-

99


104/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITpretation, thus putting an end too earlyto all further consideration. It explainsa dim process by showing a similar clearone, which pushes in ahead of the formerand conceals it*To develop means to free somethingfrom its bounds, in order that all which

has been tied up, compressed and invisibleis uncovered, spread out and made visibleby this action. This mechanical processis then transferred to organic growth.The blossom develops by the opening ofthe bud. In this case it is not only a mat-ter of a mere unwinding and emerging,but also of a swelling and growing at thesame time.The art historians look at the growth of

an artist in the image of plant growth,exhibiting an understandable predilectionfor this metaphor. They stand before twocreations by one master, which are dif-ferent from each other. They observethat the master has changed his manner

100


105/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITo expression. Since the art historians, asscientists, are highly interested in the lawof cause and effect, they attribute this re-lationship to observed phenomena. Justas they believe that the blossom containsnothing which could not have been shownin the root, so they see in the later crea-tions of a master the natural consequenceof the earlier. They are assisted in thiseffort by the metaphorical idea of a "de-velopment."

Science, in the narrower sense, is calcu-lation. For that reason the historians ofart reach so readily for images takenfrom the realm of mechanics. In thisway they escape from the sea of irrationalphenomena to the shore of causality.

Personality changes from a chrysalisinto a butterfly; it breaks the cocoon; thisidea dominates most biographical descrip-tions. Individuality is looked upon as abeing, present from the beginning, whichgrows and steps forward during the

101


106/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITcourse of its life until at last it stands be-fore us like a monument, with distinctlyexpressed forms. The hero in' the cradleis the blue-print, so to speak, or the planfor this monument. This current andcomfortable schema is prejudicial to ob-servation.The root of the plant, in itself rather a

retort than a primordial origin, is withsome justification looked upon as thesufficient cause of the blossom. In thecase of the artist, we ought not to lookupon his inner make-up as the sufficientcause of his creations but only as the con-dition.A personality is by nature of such a dis-position that it can produce that, whichin fact it does produce. No other per-sonality is able to produce the same things.But that does not mean that a personalityis endowed in the cradle with such qual-ities that it could produce only this andnothing else.

102


107/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITThe art scholar and the" connoisseur re-

tain the illusion of an inviolable individu-ality, common to all manifestations of amaster. The forms in which this pecu-liarity manifests itself they see in the sev-eral works as the marks of the particularpersonality. They may find, let us sayin six pictures by a given painter, roundears. Such signs may at times rendergood service in the practice of art ex-pertise, but nobody will value such habitsas constant marks of an individuality. Wepenetrate deeper toward the heart of thecreative force if we draw conclusions re-garding the nature of the artist's spirit,his mind, and his temperament from theforms he habitually and spontaneously re-peats. The farther we advance into thelayer of inalienable, inborn gifts, themore general and empty do the conceptsbecome. Near the center we find,, serious-ness, equanimity, conscientiousness byno means specific and significant qualities.

103


108/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITThe unmistakable aspect of personalityseems to consist in the fact that thesequalities, grouped in this particular wayand in these particular doses, in this par-ticular relation to each other, each withthis amount of impetus, struggle againsteach other and combat circumstancesoperating from without.A few chess men stand upon the boardin an infinite variety of combinations dur-ing the game. The game runs its courseonce and never repeats itself.The approach of the biographer and

the connoisseur is essentially determinedby metaphysical ideas about the nature ofpersonality. But the question should notbe: Of what stuff is the individual com-pounded, or what qualities does he in-clude? The following questions turn outmore fruitfully; how does an individualreact to this or that; how does he behavein this or that situation? What does heselect, and what does he refuse? We

104


109/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITshould examine the visible forms as atrack of his course. Whatever he is orhas we consider as taken in during hislifetime, as the deposit of his experiencesupon a plate of unalterable quality.That which the artist creates dependsupon the opportunities which fate of-

fers him, as well as upon the demandswhich his period and the community inwhich he lives make upon him, and theassistance and impediments which hemeets.Every metaphor works like a poison,

apart from its usefulness; the counter-poison is drawn from another metaphor.Here is another example: An idea wellknown to art scholars is represented bythe picture of "influence." Into such abody of water flows a river of anothersort. Starting from the meeting point,the stream is quantitatively a sum, whilequalitatively it is the product of a mix-ture. If the water were yellow in one case

105


110/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITand blue in the other, the resulting streamis green. Misled by this analogy, the artscholar looks upon every meeting of twomasters as the cause of a change in style.Whenever artists meet, it may cause

absolutely nothing or a great deal. Themeeting is an opportunity, it offers possi-bilities, but remains without consequencesif neither, of the two artists is disposed toabsorb something. There must be someempty space if anything is supposed tostream in. The receiving artist must havean inclination to be different. In such acase, collision awakes the slumbering de-sire and helps the dumb intention to be-come clear and expressive.The degree of receptivity, the capacity,

rests upon individual aptitude, beingstronger or weaker according to age andmaturity. Defense, resistance againstsuggestions from the outside, may be selfassurance, but it may also be dullness orspiritual inaction. Some artists take in

106


111/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITeverything and are always as empty as asieve. Every encounter becomes for theman episode, an experience. But in mostcases the artist is not ready for unreservedreception, but rather for the reception ofonly certain rather definite suggestions.He looks for models of a definite sort,patterns, that is, which suit him. Hisvision is limited; most suggestions hedoes not even see. Rubens was a tyrantin his relation to van Dyck; Titian, in hisrelation to van Dyck was a liberator.What one should least expect is thatqualities be added indefinitely. The artistgives up something, he rejects somethingto learn and take on something else; hesacrifices to acquire. Chemical mixingprocesses remain an insufficient image forthe inner process by which an artist di-gests experiences of nature and art, re-producing them in his own forms andaccording to his individual nature.The reader who will compare my dis-

,107


112/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITcussions of "influence" and "develop-.rnent" will notice that the warnings givenin them paralyze each other.But the danger of an all too simple, all

too mechanical, all too schematic inter-pretation threatens from both sides. Theartist is neither an empty cask nor avessel full of never lost qualities. His in-dividuality is a dynamic field which at-tracts and rejects, retains and abandons.It does not consist of the elements whichit has seized, but rather endures preciselybecause it has seized upon these particularelements.

There are few artists, apart from thosewho died young, who have carried on thatbelligerent movement which we haveshown to consist in "development" andthe reception of "influence" right up totheir death. Usually the individualizationstops somewhere in the course of life, andall that follows is shaped by the law ofinertia. The easily recognized marks of

108


113/120

GENUINE AND COUNTERFEITpersonality, about which the connoisseuris so keen, appear distinctly at that time,like stones in a river running dry.


114/120


115/120


116/120


117/120


118/120


119/120


120/120

Documents

Friedländer, Genuine and Counterfeit Experiences of a Connoisseur (1930)