The imagined and the real: a study of the classical phenomenon of the architectural Capriccio in relation to space and landscape

2

CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 The Capriccio and its Complexities: A Background Context ........................................ 5 1 Past and Present: Adaptations based on techniques used in Capriccio. .................. 7 2 Representation of Landscape by Means of Psychogeography ............................... 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 26 List of Figures ............................................................................................................. 28 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 29

3

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation presents a perspective on the concepts and applications of seeing and

understanding our landscape. It involves scholarly investigation from a range of

historical sources, in particular the classical phenomenon of the painted capriccio of

the eighteenth century, focusing fundamentally on ideals, which it may, or may not

invoke. While the eighteenth century offers a particular focus and interest to me, and

will take up a considerable body of this study chronologically, I think it is also

important to include a wide historical retrospect of the idea of capriccio, because

indeed many of the artists and artworks I will refer to, are often very much the sum of

their influences.

My study will first briefly analyse the capriccio in its literal sense. Capriccio by

definition does in fact denote, “the features of imaginary and/or real architecture,

ruined or intact, in a picturesque setting” (Oxford Art Online, 2004). This definition I

would argue focuses primarily on the aesthetic of the capriccio painting; for instance

the stylistic awareness that is evident in these types of landscape paintings of the

romantic and neoclassic age, and some of the architectural features they hold. My

second branch of analysis will use the basis of this definition as a starting point to

discover less exhausted fields of study regarding capriccio. For example, a semiotic

approach of looking at this phenomenon, which has been unseen in other studies

regarding the subject. My method of discussion will then go on to highlight ways in

which contemporary artists and intellectuals are observing a modern interpretation of

the capriccio. I will analyse how their work reinvents ideals of capriccio painting, by

“resembling the real world without simply repeating it” (The National Gallery, 2010).

By this I suggest that landscape cannot just be interpreted as a visceral experience of

4

natural form, but one of complex social and cultural discourse, which I will explore.

My research will also deal with the concepts, questions, methods, and applications of

landscape, with a particular emphasis on the ‘psychogeographical’ approach of

finding narrative and meaning in our environments. Doing this will subsequently

allow me to interpret the concept of the capriccio in a slightly different sense to its

original meaning and purpose, in terms of the renderings of architectural form. In this

way I will attempt to analyse certain works of art as reflections of certain ideologies,

as a catalyst to decipher their latent historical and cultural narratives. I am hoping that

my analysis of these historic, cultural, and theoretical sources will also enable me to

explore how certain metaphors and images, that subsequently shape our

understanding of landscape, can help to nurture new ideas of thought through modern

day art processes (present and future). Cosgrove points to a number of phenomena to

explain some distinctions when understanding landscape. In this dissertation I will

primarily focus on Cosgrove’s impression when describing ‘the idea of landscape’, in

conjunction with my focus on the ideological functions of the capriccio. My research

will draw upon the notion Cosgrove (1984, p. 18) has regarding the “specific

geographical consideration of the affective qualities of landscape” and how this is

“concentrated on the individual”. Furthermore this consideration can be applied when

relating capriccio aesthetics and a geographical imagination to enable additional

inspiration of space as a concept. Additionally, in much the same way as capricci

painters constructed their paintings as an interpretation of landscape, elements of

overly ostentatious conditions existed in it. From this context, I am hoping to realise

and bring to light the possibility in which the phenomenon of capriccio can establish

new grounds for speculation around more vexed questions based on objects and space

in a contemporary sense, touching on materiality and artificiality.

5

The Capriccio and its Complexities:

A Background Context.

In chapter one, my analysis draws upon the specific challenges of seeing and

understanding landscape, and how this is addressed and developed in a broader

discussion around the phenomenon of the capriccio. Steil’s book ‘The Architectural

Capriccio, Memory, Fantasy and Invention’, appropriates itself as an initial focus of

interest. The book and its associates broadly examine subtopics on the capriccio, and

the elements in history where they can be drawn. In support of this Dillon and Donald

(Chapter I) examine the possibilities of recreating narrative and meaning in relation to

landscapes and places. Their focus emphasises theoretical considerations needed for

further understanding of landscape, in combining past events with modern day issues.

Their study attempts to document places based on rules of interpretation. Both of

these sources act as an overall core of my research. They take into consideration hard

facts and conceptual theory, which provide a substantial amount of ground for subtext

and query to be unearthed. The second part of this chapter discusses the more refined

implications presented when interpreting old ideas of a capriccio, in order to form a

more contemporary assessment of this phenomenon. In the context on contemporary

art, the artist Sarah Pickering becomes my main subject of discussion. Her work

allows room for possible intrigue into what can constitute as having qualities to that

of a capriccio, and discovers what modes and techniques can be ensured for an

additional understanding of spaces and places.

6

In chapter two, my initial interest and assessment of capriccio landscape as an artifice

thickens. In his book ‘Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape’ Cosgrove (1984)

focuses his argument more concretely around the idea of landscape as a means of

representation through ‘an ideological concept’:

It represents a way in which certain classes of people have signified themselves and

their world through their imagined relationship with nature, and through which they

have underlined and communicated their own social role and that of others with

respect to external nature. (Cosgrove, 1984, p. 15)

There are several specific chapters of the book, that draw my interest. In the first

chapter of the book, Cosgrove bases his argument around the dual ambiguity of

landscape, firstly, he reviews not only the idea of landscape portrayal in art since the

renaissance, but secondly and more importantly he provides a geographical enquiry

which are otherwise lost in other works around this subject. It transcends many

different avenues, in which landscape can be visualised, the most appropriate being

one of geographical discussion. My interest lies in the latter of these two fields. My

focus hones in on that of a cross-disciplinary look based on Debords term

‘Psychogeography’, which Coverely (2006, p. 10) roughly interprets as “The point at

which psychology and geography collide, a means of exploring the behavioural

impact of an urban place”. Although vague, this definition offers enough scope for me

to analyse these works in conjunction, to explore my own explanations on this

subject. Furthermore, my study identifies the broader symbolic meanings of these

texts, piecing together elements where a better judgment of Capriccio can be made.

7

1

Past and Present:

Adaptations based on techniques used in Capriccio.

In the book ‘Imagining the Modern City’, Donald (1999, p.27) argues “ways of seeing

and understanding the city inevitably inform ways of acting on the space of the city”.

His distinctions between ‘reality and the imagination’ become something of an

intriguing basis upon introducing the historic background behind this study. To

demonstrate this process, Mayernik (2014, p. 12) suggests that classical capricci

painting was perhaps a critique and means of creating a “fictive reality embodying all

the credibility of documentation”, or perhaps a documentation of a current moment in

time the artist is living. But upon further study of these works we find that most of

these capricci are not merely a projection of a landscape setting, but also an

interesting set of modern perspectives on the world. Clearly Donald is not referring to

classical capricci painters or paintings in a direct sense, but the impression in which

he suggests that seeing the city in such a way is a manifestation of what kind of art

work is to be produced. This is where the connection is drawn. We see that

throughout history that visualisation and representation has been the primary

motivation on documenting the landscape, which leads to a further understanding of

it. The capriccio historically was not initially intended to invoke such heavy

consideration of thought, and has often been cast aside as second-rate picturesque

painting. Many suggest its primary function was simply to inform the viewer by

means of contrast, or as Mayernik describes it, “juxtaposing familiar things in

unfamiliar ways (local landmarks set in different landscapes)”. This is nothing to say

that the complexity of such imagery has not to be much admired, but as it happens it

8

is not to be the main forefront of my argument as this investigation progresses.

Perhaps landscape painting and in particular the paintings of capriccio, can play a

double role in respect to cultural and social philosophies. To understand this my

research must take into consideration past and present, in order to make sense of the

capriccio. Dillon (2011, p.12) suggests that the “ruin becomes an essential aesthetic

concept and recurrent image” in modern art philosophies, and why they can set the

scene in many art history paintings, particularly that of the capriccio. Dillon goes on

to describe the intent to why ruins are important in regards to relating past and

present. He terms classical ruins as “material reminders of a dead past but pointing

also to the inevitable desuetude of present architectural (and more broadly cultural or

political) scenes” Dillon (2011). It is the contradiction between the aesthetic qualities

of capriccio painting and the semiotic analysis that is my chief concern. This I think is

a stepping-stone in which a contemporary context of the Capriccio can be drawn,

which I will elaborate upon later.

So I ask, what ultimately makes the capriccio so visually intriguing? I have gathered

so far that ruins can constitute in providing a visual timeline of events, as to guide the

viewer through an architectural journey. Essentially representing a critique and means

on looking at hints of nostalgia from the past. But what else is recurrent in capricci

ruins that make for compelling discussion? To elaborate and examine further I think it

is important to bring to question artworks that illustrate and embody the necessity of

ruins. To do this we must analyse the bones of such work. Giovanni Battista Piranesi's

series of etchings and Architectural drawings (1756) ‘Antichita Romane’, in particular

(fig.1) ‘An Analysis of the Structure of the Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella’ is not

often thought of in terms of a prime example of eighteenth-century Capriccio art - for

good reason. Piranesi himself was most notable for his surveys and views of Rome.

9

While his predecessors indulged in the realm of greeting-card elegance landscape

depictions, Piranesi’s structural drawings in my opinion embodied all the attributes

accustomed to being highly contemporary of his time, yet his architectural oeuvre was

largely denied the credibility of holding any kind of artistic merit. In addition

(Stoppani et al., 2009) suggests when describing Piranesi’s ‘Vedute’ or Views Of

Rome as the “prophetic anticipation of the contemporary metropolitan condition, a

sure influence on modern culture and perhaps of his own predecessors”. However, her

argument does not take account of what can be seen in (fig.1). The distinctive parallel

between architectural proposals and intricate etching technique is evident. What is

clear is that Piranesi summarised the characteristics of these three disciplines:

archaeology, architecture and history by giving a snapshot view of the drawings in the

series, it compromises with my argument that the ‘Antichita’ series rather than the

‘Vedute’ holds the distinctive sense of being radically new for its time. Furthermore

the etching in question takes into consideration Ruins (past), Nature (present), and

architecture (future) elements, which combine all the qualities of a highly

sophisticated capricci depiction. Furthermore Jacobs, S. (2009) interprets the

“associations with tradition of the picturesque in three ways: first, by focusing on an

environment in which the natural and artificial (through the urban and rural) merge;

second, by acknowledging the amorphous and nondescript character such as

environment and doing full justice to its whimsical elements; and third, by referring

implicitly but often also explicitly to earlier landscape depictions and visualisations”.

All of these recognisably artistic devices do not take away from the fact that Piranesi

himself was accustomed to working as an architect, simply “exploiting the capriccio

as an experimental means of arriving at new concepts in architectural design” (Oxford

Art Online, 2004).

10

These designs are not just pictorial effigies of landscapes, but also designs that play

the distinct role in building structural necessity. In short they serve a purpose, not

only to inform by means of representation, but through their ability to transcend

traditional thinking. It seems important for the need to invent and adapt the templates

that were there before, to understand that the current evolving environment also

depends on the landscape that’s vanishing, or has vanished.

Figure 1. An Analysis of the Structure of the Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella: Antichita Romane (1756) (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).

11

The possible opportunities we have unearthed where capriccio could have or can

acquire relevance in a contemporary understanding are by no means exhaustive. This

research has so far primarily focused on the aesthetic makeup of the capriccio, for

example: the scope and significance of the ruin, or the idea of ruination in regarding

capriccio with landscape. But where can contemporary art ideas hold significance

when associating past and present qualities of the ruin? In Macaulay’s (1953, p. 27)

extract ‘A Note on New Ruins’ she densely describes the state of ruins in the present-

day as being “for a time stark and bare, vegetationless and creatureless; blackened and

torn, they smell of fire and mortality”. The text continues with a meticulous account

pronouncing the death of the modern day landscape. The text as a whole is a real

visual escapade on describing ruins. The problem, I suppose, is how to represent this

passage (from historical to modern) without succumbing to the inevitability of

appearing too melancholic or nostalgic and without overlooking key influences.

Progressive narrative is still to be excavated when associating social factors with

ruins. Human intervention plays a distinct role when picturing landscape, after all the

ruin is a product of human intervention and achievement, as well as natural and

environmental. To exemplify this process, Sarah Pickering’s work ‘Public order,’

(2002-2005) investigates this divide between the two. As its name suggests,

Pickering’s series of photographs demonstrate the process in which human conduct is

maintained through the rules of order. Staged landscapes, streets and building facades

are condemned for the purpose of training by British riot police. Irvine, K (2010, pp.

6-9) suggests that Pickering’s photographs represent a “type of reality - that of

simulation”. This could imply or be interpreted in one sense as structures themselves

being in every state of the word, ruinous; they fictively embody architecture (ruined),

or are in the process of being ruined. Contrary to my opinion, Irvine’s quote on

12

Pickering’s work is suggestively more inclined in perceiving “a location designed to

mentally indoctrinate the men and woman in training” Irvine, K (2010). Although,

factually true it does not take into consideration our motivation upon narrating these

environments as simple structures whereby elements of capriccio can be found. As we

examine Pickering’s work we see that much the same as what was discovered earlier,

the capriccio follows the same chronological rule of ruination, at looking at what has

been, and what remains. The juxtaposition of real and imagined elements and

narratives in, (Pickering’s, 2005) (fig. 2) ‘Front Garden, School Road’ similarly

Figure 2. Front Garden, School Road (2005), [Digital print]

13

follows the same trend as that of a traditional capriccio. We see the distinct parallels

in which Jacobs described earlier as the three common elements in which visual

cohesion in capriccio is best understood. Although true, these elements in Pickering’s

work do not denote the same sense of being natural like an eighteenth century

capriccio painting, for they are distinctively un-naturally dramatic, all adapted to stage

maximum visual narration. Many of the ideas alluded to above are suggestive of

Piranesi’s playful articulation on shifting the factors between nature and civilisation,

which ultimately exposes decisive historical and cultural narratives - for example the

significance of the ruin. What is deceptive though, is it while architectural, natural,

and historic insistence is constant throughout studying these works, psychological

aspects are simply echoed in both Pickering’s and Piranesi’s work, particularly in the

works I’ve mentioned. Rarely does the viewer come in to contact with a human

presence as such, the observer virtually always depends upon the landscape to convey

the story. In the Chapter ‘Landscape as Theatre’, Jackson (1979, p. 68) also states the

landscapes importance in some examples of high renaissance painting as “serving to

locate or define the human action”. These hints alone suggest a sophisticated

relationship in which geographical knowledge is inserted within a wider sphere of

social and cultural production through overlapping metaphors, reminiscent of early

capriccio ideas, and still, I would argue, palpable in modern landscape

representations. Pickering’s work is implicit for the need to “explore an ideal - a state

of normality, whatever that is, but her photos reveal a curious probing into what

constitutes the aesthetics of constructed environments” (The British Journal of

Photography, et al., 2010). The metaphors suggestive of spectacles and theatrically

staged environments are fraught when analysing Pickering’s work, hence its

importance when addressing the implications of deconstructing such artworks.

14

Upon further examination of Pickering’s series ‘Public Order’, ‘Semi–Detached,

2004’, our view is diverted; the apparent structural authenticity and natural elements

of the environment in ‘Front Garden, School Road’ becomes irrelevant. In (fig, 3) our

attention is first drawn to the “cartoon-like” qualities, and it’s apparent “reductive

organizational structure and general cleanliness”, as Irvine, K (2010, pp. 6-9)

suggests. I think it is paramount when visualising such works to take account of their

obvious imitation. In essence it is the imitation of the works I have likened to the

capriccio that makes them so visually exciting. In her review of Pickering’s work,

(Rudick et al., 2008) liken the imitation of the sets in the photographs to that of

‘staged dramas’. With this in mind it seems more appropriate to liken such

environments to ‘theatre’ or, even better still, to say the act of theatrical disposition or

‘staged sets’ appears true throughout when envisioning the capriccio as a whole for

that instance. Compositionally ‘Semi-Detached’ becomes most intriguing. Emphasis

on the architectural structure and threshold are prominent, so as to welcome the

viewer into a different train of thought, the eye is drawn to the open door on the right,

seemingly accessible to enhance the viewers intrigue into the space. Only misjudged

to find that the space is not that of a normal structure, but a single horizontal plane

façade, undoubtedly a prop. Hints of ruination are suggested although it is not of

primary importance. The architectural setting resembles that of my next artwork of

study.

15

Figure 3. Semi-Detached (2004), [Digital print]

16

In the work of (Messina, 1475) ‘St Jerome In His Study’ (fig. 4) we can connect the

same set of composition techniques likened to that of Pickering’s photographs and,

although dissimilar the painting holds similar traits to traditional capricci. In

"Building the Picture: Architecture in Italian Renaissance Painting", an art exhibition

at the National Gallery in London (2014), the judgments of traditional architectural

Figure 4. St Jerome in His Study (1475), [Oil On Lime]. The National Gallery, London.

17

space in paintings is subsequently subverted when introduced to a new understanding

on viewing renaissance painting. In her review of the exhibition (Clarke et al., 2014)

note the power in these architecturally sound pieces, and their ability to “engage the

viewer and together weave a series of intriguing narratives.” As well as the curation

team, experts in the field of Italian Renaissance painting and contemporary artists

correlate foremost characteristics of these works to propel a new way of seeing and

understanding old environments, with new perspectives. My focus teams with a

section of the exhibition: ‘Entering the Picture’ when comparing the composition of

‘St Jerome In His Study’ with Pickering’s work, with a broader importance to the role

of the phenomenon of the capriccio. Rhodes, speaking on behalf of (The National

Gallery, 2014) explains the “possibility of moving into the world of this picture”

when analysing Messina’s ‘St Jerome’. His analysis first investigates the various uses

of iconography and its implications when reading the painting. He then goes on to

describe the poignancy of “the landscape in the very background that’s framed for us

by the windows that are on the left and the right-hand side of the image”. It is this

observation that becomes my main motivation when questioning Pickering’s ‘Semi-

detached’ and its determination to indulge one’s inquiry. The event, as I intend to

deem it, is authenticated metaphorically rather than through factual detail and

observation, though indeed it is questionable to suggest that the iconography may

hold larger importance when discussing capriccio. Undeniably, our understanding of

ruination may hint at iconographic symbolism being of upmost importance when

seeing different elements of capriccio, which does not suggest that it should be

completely ignored. But for this instance, I centre my reading around the

representation of space. The painting of ‘St Jerome In His Study’ works

uncompromisingly on so many different levels, which is why it is hard to pin down a

18

singular valid recess. Although, going back to my earlier questioning around

‘theatrical’ enquiry in capriccio, it seems a compromisingly decent way of addressing

this painting. In her journal on understanding ‘An Iconographic Analysis’ of

Messina’s St Jerome, (Jolly et al., 1983) peruses mainly objects in the painting, but

also hints at the presence of “his desk on a raised platform which forms the floor of

his study”. The platform itself, or as jolly identifies the “carrel is set within a much

larger stone-vaulted building”, a style reminiscent to that of a theatrical set. Mayernik

(2009, pp. 21-29) consolidates this theme when discussing components of early

capricci, he states: “The principles of landscape composition depended on the tried-

and-true structure of foreground as frame: often with the requisite repoussoir tree

trunk or temple ruin leading the viewer's gaze into the picture”. In this case, the

surrounding architectural edifice acts as the catalyst. Upon further investigation the

‘door’ to the left of the paintings foreground seems odd. We note its difference to the

surrounding brick portico, which does not hold any kind of distinct resemblance to the

platform that Jerome sits, but looks more like a botched MDF prop. However, the

painting still warrants our query of the space similar to that of Pickering’s ‘semi-

detached’. Jackson (1979, p. 67) suggests it is the metaphor of the theatre that

“implies people’s ability to see themselves as occupying the centre of the stage”.

The viewer’s intrigue is notably influenced by such structures, which indicates the

skill between linking landscape and the technique of composition and perspective to

enhance our query. Not only does this document the physical structure of the place,

but also enhances the aspects that reveal its artifice and purpose as a location and how

it can be interpreted. It is reasonable, to question this linkage between the capriccio by

means of aesthetic representation and the underlying longing to try and discover

hidden narratives through the means of Psychogeography.

19

2

Representation of Landscape by Means of Psychogeography

From the research I have obtained in Chapter 1 we have been able to question the vast

amount of pictorial ephemera utilized when creating and understanding a capriccio.

The employment of this information made possible the historical points in time when

narrating new evaluations of landscapes, which has been represented in the work of

artists since the time of the renaissance to present-day. We have also discovered the

capriccio’s ability to intrigue one’s questioning around the idea of subordinate space

in the form of ‘staged’ artworks, in conjunction with landscapes, and why this

assessment of real and imagined space is of any significance. Beyond this, it opens up

additional strategies to consider after combining connections between all these

factors, which brings to fruition the purpose of Psychogeography in my study.

To substantiate my claim that the phenomenon of the capriccio and Psychogeography

bear any kind of resemblance I think it imperative to give reason for my associations.

Certainly I am not suggesting that factually a link has ever existed between the two

seemingly opposing disciplines. Although links can be found it is important that we

note the uncommon relationship between the two. My discussion in this chapter bases

the argument of discussion around the ability to indulge ones imagination. Indeed, in

his article Mayernick (2009) suggests that “The capriccio, in essence, depended on

drama and hyperbole to create a sense of both believability and sublime

impossibility”. In combination Cosgrove (1984, p.17) notes when explaining ‘the idea

of landscape’ that it is “composed for its aesthetic content and may excite a

20

psychological response”, he goes on to suggest that landscapes can engage a

“subjective response in those who observed or experienced them” Cosgrove (1984). I

would argue that both of these factors intertwine unavoidably. To regard capriccio as

a singular technical process of artistic production seems unthrifty, as does

disregarding suggestion that landscape should just be interpreted as a visceral

experience of natural form. On the contrary, both connote deep psychological and

geographical meanings, just to their own cause, and accordingly together. On the

contrary, some aspects that make up the capriccio require more in depth analysis.

Mayernik (2009) describes the themes of “changing scale (making something humble

into something grand, or vice versa)” while interpreted conversely; making landscape

humble and enriching our thoughts on otherwise neglected spaces. The semiotic

principle of the capriccio as an impression of understanding the landscape as a

construct becomes my main focus upon introducing this chapter.

I must also contrast my approach here to that of Burckhardt (2015, pp.31-32) whose

book Why is Landscape Beautiful?: The Science of Strollology, highlights the “range

of phenomena found in our environment—colours, structures, identifiable natural

contexts and signs of human intervention”. These approaches of seeing landscape

resonate continuously throughout my own dissertation. Burckhardt (2015)

additionally, describes these analogues with constant reassurance to this experience of

a “charming place”, he continues:

“To identify a landscape as charming is insofar synonymous with the endeavour to

‘filter out’ whatever we actually do see in the place visited, so as to be able to

integrate the outcome in our preconceived, idealized image of the charming place”

21

What Burckhardt describes here, is a person’s ability to make best of picturing a

landscape in plain sight, and then being able to romanticise such visions and how they

should be perceived. This quintessential manner of observation could depend on a

psychogeographical approach, which might offer itself as a means of studying

landscape best. It could also be possible to suggest the capriccio’s artifice can

substitute a setting of disregarded integrity; the pomp and foppish style may act as a

method of making best judgment out of a bad space, although our understanding of

ruins in capriccio may contradict this way of seeing. I think it’s feasible to suggest

that there are many different avenues and approaches where associations can be

found, which I am going to try and discover.

In ‘The Situationist City’ by Simon Sadler, he coincidentally assimilates the study of

Piranesi’s ‘Carceri’ with Psychogeography. The manner in which he links the two

tends to favour that of post-modern architectural discussion, as a means of creating an

ideal purpose, or as the chapter title states a “Formulary For a New Urbanism” Sadler

(1998, p. 69). I’d like to point out at this point of the discussion that, my intention

does not follow the same path; my objective is to produce an interesting set of

perspectives and connections, as a means of looking at things differently, not by

means of proposal. Although some, good points are made. Sadler (1998, p. 76)

explains, “Eighteenth-century theorists had advocated the picturesque and sublime as

stimulants to reverie”, in hindsight reverie as an act of psychogeographical

temperament tends to be in high regard throughout history. Aimlessly drifting wide-

eyed, taking note of defunct babble on the street seemed a popular pastime. Why, for

that matter should this way of seeing be endorsed today? I’d suggest that for all its

deep musing, psychogeography postulates an aura of comical value, which should not

be overlooked as mere capricious sentimentality. To expand further, the mode of

22

seeing through the eyes of an eighteenth century visionary as Sadler suggests derives

from a desire to create a way of seeing which opposes conventional cognition of the

environment. The act of translating such cognition of landscape in an art form

assimilates the themes particular to that in capriccio. To locate my claim that a

comedic assessment of our landscape is necessary depends on all the principles of an

‘eighteenth-century’ flâneur to substitute my argument, or as Coverely (2006, p. 13)

puts it “psychogeography and its practitioners provide a history of ironic humour that

is often a welcome counterbalance to the portentousness of some of its more jargon-

heavy proclamations”. The experiences of space through reason, perception,

imagination, and memory (subconsciously or consciously) to idealise the views of our

environment, I think is an intrinsic part of a creative ability of which everyone shares,

imagination of this sort is not confined by a mode of hierarchy but through ones own

curiosity. Furthermore in the views proposed by Burckhardt et al. (2011, p. 149) he

suggests “If it is indeed the case that each person viewing a landscape picks out

certain elements and filters out others in order to paint his own picture of a pleasant

place, the selection is doubtless highly individual: every person applies different

criteria”. The style of capriccio as I see it, is the end product of this query, an artistic

culmination of thought, and an attempt to idealise stubborn landscapes over time in a

snapshot projection. In essence it is inspiration of the ‘commonplace’ which I am

talking about, for example: “crowds moving through space, architectural and human

configurations, signs and images, the sounds and tempi of everyday life” Donald

(1999, p. 45).

23

The transitory nature of psychogeography is represented visually in the paintings of

the traditional capriccio artist: Giovanni Paolo Panini. In both of these

characteristically capricci paintings (fig. 5) and (fig. 6) our role as ‘pedestrian’ and

‘flâneur’ enters at street level. The course in this case the path creates a space of

complete architectural and allegorical immersion through a melee of activity, to

which all lines are drawn towards the anti-climax of the exit through the arches in the

centre. In Part, what Panini demonstrates is the passage from observer to participant,

with all the encompassing qualities of geography and narrative at play. The scenario

“invites the testing of playful and experimental methods which attempt to articulate

their complexity”(DeSilvey et al., 2013). The paintings raise many questions that

challenge the distinction between what Cosgrove terms ‘Humanistic geography’ and

landscape painting (1984). According to Cosgrove (1984, p. 33) “The subject of

landscape in art is the spectator or the artist, participating as creator or controller

through the medium of perspective”. There is, of course relationship between the

artist and us the spectator, but I think more importantly Panini’s guidance lets the role

of spectator take priority, thus allowing room for an amount of imagination and

scepticism. But of course the process of taking a walk ‘mentally’ through a painting

and taking a walk ‘physically’ are a whole world apart in theory, but more applicable

as a creative process, as Debord (1958, quoted in Coverely, 2006, p. 94) states in his

glossary of psychogeographical terminology as: “Unitary Urbanism The theory of

the combined use of arts and techniques for the integral construction of a milieu in

dynamic relation with the experience in behaviour”. Psychogeography, seems from

the outset a highly speculative mode of seeing, able to “distil the varied ambiances of

the urban environment” (2006) through the most simple of actions (taking a walk).

24

Figure 5. A Capriccio of Roman Ruins with the Arch of Constantine (1755) [Oil on canvas]

Figure 6. A Capriccio of the Roman Forum (1741) [Oil on canvas]

25

From the context of psychogeography our understanding of capriccio is filled with

possibilities, what first seems an ‘ideological concept’ becomes more concrete, and

makes the transit from historical to contemporary all the more relevant. The

anachronisms we face still stand the test of time, and dictate a way of seeing which

“are not just nostalgic for enervated futures and run-down architectural dreams, but

fascinated by the tectonic overlap between modernism and the machinery of mass

destruction.” (Dillon et al., 2008). As a slightly more breezy parallel to what Dillon

suggests, an anachronistic depiction also allows possibility for more light-hearted

innuendos of the modern architectural ruin, the coliseum as a fridge magnet, sold in a

Trafalgar Square souvenir shop for example. It is questionable therefore, to ask what

are the limitations to this phenomenon of psychogeography, and when does it cease to

become anything more than it already is?

26

CONCLUSION

This dissertation is conceived as a modest contribution to our understanding of the

relation between the notion of seeing and representing landscapes. More specifically,

it attempted to trace the historical styles in landscape tradition as a method of revising

and re-establishing their original intentions. The problem throughout was always

concerned with allowing room for uncertainty and interpretation when dealing with

such nebulous concepts. The question I addressed, was why this phenomenon seemed

appropriate when attempting to understand space and landscape better. My aim in

combatting this problem was to break the predictability of seeing landscapes without

a purpose, and opposing conventional methods of observation. Heidemann and

Kersten (2011, p. 23) have stressed “the fact that such an image is based always on a

certain notion of landscape – a notion that need not necessarily correspond to reality”.

Consequently the capriccio prompted the investigation by “inventing a reality that is

at once fantastic and yet believable” Mayernik (2009). The purpose of capriccio in

this essay was not just to elaborate on its objectives, nor compositions, or

perspectives, but towards highlighting the linkage between our past, present and

future. More straightforwardly, it makes us think openly with greater foresight. One

could quite easily spend time theorising on the paradoxes and metaphors, or merely

reflect upon the aesthetics of landscape artwork, effectively re-enacting past

narratives. Additionally ones approach upon imagining the real could centre character

on that of the flâneur, as a means of representing an individual’s view of reality.

Solnit (2001, quoted in Coverely, 2006, pp. 61-62)

27

“The only problem with the flâneur is that he did not exist, except as a type, an ideal,

and a character in literature… no one quite fulfilled the idea of the flâneur, but

everyone engaged in some version of flâneury”.

From this point of view, our perception of the meaning of landscape is therefore by no

means a personal or vanguard, our application can therefore be submissive or highly

conscious of our surroundings, becoming more than just spectator but regulator.

28

Figures

Figure 1. An Analysis of the Structure of the Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella; Antichita Romane, By Giovanni Battista Piranesi, (1756), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Figure 2. Front Garden, School Road, By Sarah Pickering, (2005) Availableat:http://www.sarahpickering.co.uk/Works/Pulic-Order/workpg-03.html(Accessed:25November2015). Figure 3. Semi-Detached, By Sarah Pickering (2004) Availableat:http://www.sarahpickering.co.uk/Works/Pulic-Order/workpg-17.html(Accessed:25November2015). Figure 4. St Jerome In His Study, By Antonello De Messina (1475), The National Gallery, London. Figure 5. A Capriccio of Roman Ruins with the Arch of Constantine, By Giovanni Paolo Panini (1755), Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto. Figure 6. A Capriccio of the Roman Forum, By Giovanni Paolo Panini (1741), Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven.

29

Bibliography

BOOKS/ONLINE: Burckhardt, L., Becker, I., Heidemann, C., Kersten, A., Schmitz, M. and Seyfarth, L. (2011) Belvedere. Why is Landscape Beautiful?. Bielefeld: Kerber Verlag. Burckhardt, L. (2015) Why Is Landscape Beautiful?: The Science of Strollology. Edited by Markus Ritter and Martin Schmitz. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser. Cosgrove, D. (1984) ‘Social Formation And Symbolic Landscape’. 2nd edn. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. Coverely, M. (2006) Psychogeography. Harpenden: Oldcastle Books. Pocket Essential Series. Dillon, B. (ed.) (2011) ‘RUINS’. London: Whitechapel Gallery. Donald, J. (1999) ‘Imaginging the Modern City’. London: The Athlone Press. Irvine, K. (2010) ‘Sarah Pickering’. New York: D.A.P/Distributed Art Publishers, pp. 6-9. Jackson, J,B. (1970) ‘The Necessity for Ruins, and Other Topics’ Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 67-68. Jacobs, S. (2009) 'The Photoresque: Images Between City and Countryside', (ed.) Beyond the Picturesque. Ghent (Belgium): S.M.A.K, pp. 49–51. The National Gallery (2010) Clive Head: ‘Modern Perspectives’. Available at: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/channel/contemporary-artists/ (Accessed: 25 October 2015). Macaulay, R. (1953) 'A Note on New Ruins', in Dillon, B. (ed.) RUINS. London: Whitechapel Gallery, pp. 27-28. Mayernik, D. (2014) 'Meaning and Purpose of the Capriccio', Steil, L. The Architectural Capriccio: Memory, Fantasy and Invention. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, p.12 Oxford Art Online, (2004) Capriccio. Available at: http://www.oxfordartonline.com.arts.idm.oclc.org/subscriber/article/grove/art/T013901 (Accessed: 4 October 2015). Sadler, S. (1998) The Situationist City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MITT Press.

30

JOURNALS: Anonymous. (2010) 'Safe from Harm', The British Journal of Photography, 157(7774), pp. 22. Clarke, G. (2014) 'A Sense Of Perspective', Architectural Review, 236(1410), pp. 92-93 DeSilvey, C. (2013) 'Reckoning with Ruins', Progress In Human Geography, 37(4), pp. 465-485. Dillon, B. (2008) 'Ravishing anachronisms', Sight & Sound, 18(1), p. 8. Jolly, P, H. (1983) 'Antonello da Messina's Saint Jerome in His Study: An Iconographic Analysis', The Art Bulletin, 65(2), pp. 238-253. Mayernik, D. (2009) 'From Painting En Plein Air to INVENTING THE CAPRICCIO', American Artist, 73(794), pp. 21-29. Rudick, N. (2008) 'Sarah Pickering', Artforum International, 46(7), pp. 364. Stoppani, T. (Aut 2009) 'The Vague, the Viral, the Parasitic: Piranesi's Metropolis', Footprint, Issue 5, p147-160, 14p VIDEO/FILM: The National Gallery (Apr 2014) John David Rhodes, Entering the Picture, Building the Picture. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQokpBBoXIc (Accessed: 12 October 2015).