SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P.R.A. (1723-1792). KITTY FISHER AS CLEOPATRA. (In the Collection of Mrs. Chatterton)
Below: Francesco cavaliere trevisani (1656-1746).
CLEOPATRA; DETAIL FROM ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA. (Rome: Gallery Spada)
Reynolds seldom went so far as this in his thefts. He merely gives his model a new face and a sim
pler dress. “He who borrows an idea from an ancient .... and so accomodates it to his own work that it makes a part of it, with no seam or join appearing, can hardly be charged with plagiarism.” (Rey
nolds’ 6th Discourse.) The figure in the Italian model is a fragment. Design and subject are in accord.
As an example of a painter without tradition, who has attained considerable reputation (as I think, undeserved) I would select the doudnier Rousseau. It cannot be claimed with any conviction that Rousseau had his roots in peasant art, or in any tradition. We only have to put one of his pic
tures beside a Bruegel, or others of that school, to become aware of Rousseau’s inferiority. For an artist who had interesting and stimulating ideas and wished to return to tradition I would name Cezanne. Cezanne wanted to make
something solid and more formally co-ordinated out of Impressionist painting, but he could seldom realize his ambition. He was incapable of constructing the human fig
ure, and in face of all that has been said by critics, many of his pictures are flat, incoherent, and fragmentary.
When art gets out of touch with nature and tradition we lose our way. As there is no criterion, every one claims to be right, and art criticism degenerates into a recital of the critic’s personal tastes, or a chronicle of names.
Without tradition there is no freedom to choose in painting and the varieties and alternatives of the craft are lost. All paintings begin to look alike, because the apparent conventions of style under such conditions arise from the common limitations of incompetence, not from knowledge and choice of means. The rules of painting are not broken or surpassed because there are no rules, and any attempt to return to tradition becomes merely an idea, which degene
rates into a flattering association of bad modern work with the great names of the past. Above all, without tradition and the historical sense we cannot be aware of our position in the present or critical of ourselves.
Is there nothing to be said against tradition? Of course there is. I am not briefed to give the answer, but I have not ignored objections. Traditional painting is seldom bad, but it is often mediocre. The school picture-indicates an academic level of talent, but it is the seed-bed which fosters great artists. As an exercise (to find out how they
Below: Francesco cavaliere trevisani (1656-1746).
CLEOPATRA; DETAIL FROM ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA. (Rome: Gallery Spada)
Reynolds seldom went so far as this in his thefts. He merely gives his model a new face and a sim
pler dress. “He who borrows an idea from an ancient .... and so accomodates it to his own work that it makes a part of it, with no seam or join appearing, can hardly be charged with plagiarism.” (Rey
nolds’ 6th Discourse.) The figure in the Italian model is a fragment. Design and subject are in accord.
As an example of a painter without tradition, who has attained considerable reputation (as I think, undeserved) I would select the doudnier Rousseau. It cannot be claimed with any conviction that Rousseau had his roots in peasant art, or in any tradition. We only have to put one of his pic
tures beside a Bruegel, or others of that school, to become aware of Rousseau’s inferiority. For an artist who had interesting and stimulating ideas and wished to return to tradition I would name Cezanne. Cezanne wanted to make
something solid and more formally co-ordinated out of Impressionist painting, but he could seldom realize his ambition. He was incapable of constructing the human fig
ure, and in face of all that has been said by critics, many of his pictures are flat, incoherent, and fragmentary.
When art gets out of touch with nature and tradition we lose our way. As there is no criterion, every one claims to be right, and art criticism degenerates into a recital of the critic’s personal tastes, or a chronicle of names.
Without tradition there is no freedom to choose in painting and the varieties and alternatives of the craft are lost. All paintings begin to look alike, because the apparent conventions of style under such conditions arise from the common limitations of incompetence, not from knowledge and choice of means. The rules of painting are not broken or surpassed because there are no rules, and any attempt to return to tradition becomes merely an idea, which degene
rates into a flattering association of bad modern work with the great names of the past. Above all, without tradition and the historical sense we cannot be aware of our position in the present or critical of ourselves.
Is there nothing to be said against tradition? Of course there is. I am not briefed to give the answer, but I have not ignored objections. Traditional painting is seldom bad, but it is often mediocre. The school picture-indicates an academic level of talent, but it is the seed-bed which fosters great artists. As an exercise (to find out how they