POUSSIN’S HUMOUR
1
The author, writing about Poussin’s paintings,
explains where he is coming from and the scheme of art history that was in
operation at the Courtauld Institute of Art in the 1950s and 1960s. He sees
that as lacking an art critical component and interested primarily in
iconographical meanings. That scheme has operated especially in the case of
Poussin’s paintings. They became – and remained – an important model for
classical academic art beginning in the years immediately after Poussin’s death
(in 1665).
2
By contrast the author, starting from an admiration
for painters like Henri Matisse and intensely concerned with colour, became
interested only slowly and gradually in Poussin’s practice as a painter. His
first writing about Poussin’s Sacraments paintings, a doctoral thesis (Edinburgh,
1968) was conservative, largely concerned with iconography, and also with
sources in antique art and in book illustration. But later concerns with
teaching Fine Arts students and with new interest in contemporary art practice
shifted his investigations to unexpected irregularities and peculiarities of
some of Poussin’s paintings. These he found have not been commented on before,
and the reason, he believes, is the aforesaid lack in art historical practice of
concern with the practice of painting. The result of this lack is a failure to
recognise Poussin’s wit as a painter.
3
Since the book does not have any reproductions in
either colour of black and white, he lists available reproductions of Poussin’s
paintings and drawings. In addition he provides general notes on his reading
for the writing of this book.
4
STUDYING POUSSIN
The author reviews the state of art historical
knowledge of Poussin. It is rich in iconographical study and in a close
attention to the intellectual context of the painting, that is to say, the
currents of philosophical thought with which Poussin and his patrons might have
been familiar. There has also been extensive and valuable work done on
establishing the oeuvre in painting and drawing, by documentary research and by
connoisseurship. In addition there have been occasional attempts to recognise
Poussin’s practice as a painter, by Michael Podro, Oskar Bättschmann, David
Carrier, Todd Olson and recently, and most notably, by T.J.Clark.
5
Poussin has been studied as if his ‘thought’ was to
be found by examining the content of his paintings and their links to the
history of ideas, that is to say the history of philosophical and literary expression of ideas. This supposes
that writing rather than painting is the measure of ideas and his thinking. In
particular, his painterly play with artifice and illusion has been disregarded.
6
This is maintained in the literature by denying as
far as possible the baroque, the devotional and the irrational and illusionist
features of his painting. In the 1960s, on the basis of highly selective
biographical details, he was regarded as a liberal agnostic and an academic
classicist, painting that seeks respectability among literary people by aping literature.
In contrast with the insistence of historical scholars on content, there was an
insistence by art critics on the formal design character of the paintings.
These were valued as part of a classical tradition that led to the paintings of
Paul Cézanne and thence to the formal inventions of early modernism and
abstraction. But this tends to ignore the process in the medium.
7
There follows a discussion of the basis of the
widely practised iconographical study, that is to say the study of recognisable
scenes and the apparent actions of figures, as if they were scenes with actors
in a theatre. It is there that the author sees a lack of understanding, and a
need for a close attention to the conditions of painting, since the scenes in
Poussin’s pictures are not tableaux vivants, but painted figures made
visible by painting.
8
The author summarises the prevalent view of
Poussin’s development as a painter, from baroque to classical. He wishes to add
to this an account of Poussin’s artifice, that is to say, the conscious
construction of images from the materials of painting. He discusses the various
ways of describing the respondent to painting. He settles on the term ‘reader’
and asks the crucial question of the book: what does it mean to be a reader of
Poussin’s paintings?
9
PAINTING AS A PRACTICE
The importance of la pratica, practice, is stated by Poussin in his
Osservazioni
(in Bellori’s Life).
This has only a very restricted meaning for academic theory: it omits knowledge
of the medium and the effects of the application of paint. That is a heuristic
kind of knowledge, practical know-how. In academic theory practice becomes no more than a
mechanical operation of representation, the kind of practice that gave rise to
Marcel Duchamp’s scorn: bête come un peintre. Practice, as execution, had to be rescued by
Delacroix’s writings and practice and by Baudelaire’s criticism in the 19th
century. In discussion of the creation of beautiful figures, critics have
repeatedly neglected painting as the mere means of signification and
concentrated on the figures signified. This is a modernist procedure, it fails
to goback to Aristotle’s view of mimesis, as including the colours and drawn shapes.
‘Seeing as’ is then left to the reader of painting’s sharp definition or its
loose and ambiguous vagueness. Painting is a double structure of ‘figures’ in
the sense of drawn shapes and colours and ‘figures’ in the sense of the figures
of recognizable things. Although a purely formal discussion is not to be
recommended, yet there is much room for a discussion of the strategic thinking
involved in the practice of painting and drawing.
10
ANTIQUE
THEORY & PAINTING
11
Poussin
as a painter in the antique manner
Although Poussin’s later paintings – from the 1630
onwards – do not have obtrusive brushwork of the kind found in many of his
contemporaries, there is still a residue of his earlier manner of open
brushwork, but on a smaller scale.
12
His paintings are painted as if they are ancient
works of art, rather than as if they are things seen and recorded. This follows
a tradition that is most obvious in Mantegna’s painting and then in the small
history scenes inserted in sixteenth century fresco decoration. Poussin’s
however are movable, framed oil paintings, independent of decorative framing on
a wall.
13
Poussin’s well-known distance from Caravaggio’s
painting can be seen as a refusal to become a painter of the visible. He
insists instead on the actions and passions of his figures, the invisible. But
this entails an extremely careful attention to the visible appearance of his
figures by which the invisible can be known. For this reason the operation of
the painting in the construction of a scene is of crucial importance.
14
The writings of the Philostratus family are significant
for Poussin, both in the
ekphrasis, or description, of paintings and in the
discussion of painting in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. These are a rich source for
the notion of a playful illusion in the relation between material painting and
resulting image. This tradition is conspicuously present in Bellori’s 1672 Life
of
Poussin, but largely absent in subsequent writers. For Poussin as for any
artist the imaginary is at work in the manipulation of wax to model small
figures or in drawing and painting.
15
Only in T.J.Clark’s recent book ‘The Sight of
Death’ is the question of Poussin’s artifice properly opened up. Artifice is
also at issue in Jean-François Lyotard’s Discours, figure in which he distinguishes
between the effects of text and of image. The importance of figure, image and
picture is that they are instruments not of ‘signification’ but of
‘designation’, of pointing to things.
16
JUDGEMENT
OF SOLOMON
The problem for a painter is how to show which of
two women (harlots, only witnesses as to the death of a child) is the true
mother of a living child. In the Bible the problem is solved by the words
spoken by the two women in response to Solomon’s ruse: he orders that the
living child be cut in half. But that resolution is impossible in a painting
without words.
17
Poussin thought it was his most beautiful painting,
a judgement based, no doubt, on the beauty of its concetto, since the common
judgement of its general appearance is that it is harsh and austere. But all judgements are open to question
in this painting. Even the symmetry of the architectural setting is flawed and
questionable. The spatial effect
of the figures is elusive, with a typical Poussinian play between surface and
illusional depth relations.
18
An analysis of the drawings for the painting shows
that Poussin gradually changes the figures so that the one on the left, who in
Raphael’s paintings is usually the True mother, gives only a superficial
appearance of being the True mother. Even the facial expressions are far from
conclusive. The difficulty of deciding by appearances is increased. It has not
been noticed that the women have exactly the same facial profile, mirroring one
another, one in light one in shadow.
19
Experience shows that this painting commonly leads
to an animated debate, not unlike the contestation in a courtroom. All the
possible factors in the appearance the women are to be considered, and none of
them, is conclusive. The essay ends with an observation that has not been made
before and which may to settle the matter. To say more would be a ‘spoiler’.
20
REBECCA
AT THE WELL
This, like the ‘Judgement of Solomon’, was painted
for Jean Pointel. It too should engage the judgement and intelligence of the
reader. How is Eliezer to choose a bride from among the beautiful girls drawing
water from a well at Nahor?
21
There is one very strange detail that commonly
baffles all but the most attentive readers. This has not been discussed in the
literature. Nonetheless it requires a practical judgement of exactly what is
represented that is of a kind rarely given proper attention. Furthermore, while
the painting has been praised as a presentation of beautiful women, it is
seldom pointed out that their beauty is only a beauty of appearances. They
appear on closer regard to be idle or clumsy.
22
Famously discussed in the Academy, the camels of
Eliezer are not visible in the painting. They are not even ‘hidden’ in the
landscape, as in puzzle pictures. That is not surprising, since Poussin in his
landscape paintings rarely gives a hint of an anthropomorphic reading of
landscape features.
23
In addition to the figures, there is one item that
is in all probability derived from the Renaissance interest in ancient
hieroglyphs. There is a sphere on a pillar, which, in all probability is a sign
that the one God presides over the conjunction of Rebecca and Isaac. The sphere on a column recurs in two of
Poussin’s pictures referring to divinely ordained marriages: the second version
of Marriage of
the Sacraments,
and the impending marriage of Moses and Zipporah in the engraving of Moses
and the daughters of Jethro.
24
Though the painting is concerned with a plausible
presentation of he biblical story, it is also a challenge to the reader’s
judgement of what is actually there to be seen. There is not only a tempting
possible confusion about the drawing of one of the women at the well, there is
also the temptation offered by Eliezer’s sword-hilt at his waist. Given the
encounter between the man and these beautiful women, a lewd-minded reader might
perhaps misinterpret it.
25
ADDITIONAL NOTES
There are also brief notes on the peculiarities of
figuration in Narcissus & Echo Louvre), The Rape of the Sabines (Metropolitan Museum, New
York), The Feast of Pan and the small Adoration of the Shepherds (National Gallery, London).
The first three of these are in the form of Philostratus-like descriptions, which point to the artifoce
of the paintings, but without exensive interpretative commentary. The fourth takes
the form of a series of questions requiring attentive observation of the
painting of the picture.
26
ET IN ARCADIA EGO
Once more, writing about the morality of a picture
would be incomplete without writing about the play of its signifying material.
Taking all of that in makes for a full reading.
27
The problem of the date of the Louvre version is
not easily resolved. The argument is maintained that it is as enigmatic as any
and all allegories. The reading of the painting through conspiracy-theory
suspicion of European religion and politics is particularly unsubstantiated.
28
Lawrence Steefel Jr’s attended to the shadow of a
shepherd on the tomb and Louis Marin concluded it was the image of a scythe.
Both authors were looking for further symbolic images within the picture to
incorporate in moralising interpretation. But neither considered the
fundamental issues of visibility in shadows and lights in painting, sticking
rather with legibility.
29
Erwin Panofsky’s reading of the meaning of the
inscription, accepted, but his view of the change in moral sentimental between
the two versions of the subject, rejected. Interpretations of the actions of
the figures are inconclusive. Félibien ‘s description compared with Bellori’s:
the change in moral sentiment between the two versions attributed to Félibien’s
misreading, rather than to Poussin.
30
A material reading (visibility) could begin with
the inscription on the tomb. It is painted to make it visible, as shadow and
light rendering of letters cut into the stone of the tomb. The inscription is
incomplete and part of it barely visible, because of interruptions by the
figures and by the shadow of the shepherd cast on the tomb. The shepherd
reading the inscription, spelling it out, touching each letter in turn, leads to
ain interpretation of the figures as having varying degrees of literacy and
varying abilities in relation to understanding the meaning of the inscription.
31
SELF-PORTRAITS
Interpretation of painters’ self-portraits is
usually wrongly based on biographical evidence (writings) & sentiment,
excluding the painterly construction.
Poussin’s have been elaborately discussed in terms of the isolatable
symbolic items. There has also been attention recently by Bätschmann and by
Cropper and Dempsey to the thematics of absence-presence in the paintings. The
question asked now is what is the relation of the image to truthful actuality?
32
Both paintings are discussed as illusions of
presence or actuality, life as opposed to death, material paint on canvas as opposed
to illusion of presence. The analysis of the Louvre painting begins with the
representation of a nail-hole in the wall. Then the frames and the canvases
behind the figure are discussed. The peculiar presence of the inscription on a
blank canvas, with the shadow cast over it by, presumably the figure of the
painter, is taken as an indication that in thee illusional construction the
figure of the painter is in front of the canvas to which it should belong, as
if it were therefore to be seen as a real presence instead of a mere painted
one. This is seen as a characteristically seventeenth century device for
claiming actual presence in a portrait.
33
ECSTASY OF ST PAUL
Is it possible to imagine the painting not only as
a fine religious image, fine especially in its illusionistic construction, but
also as possibly to be read by those who knew about Scarron’s licentious
behaviour as a satirical portrait of him, as St Paul seated on thee laps of
beautiful androgynous angels? This is not asserted as a ‘correct’ reading, but
as a possibility for Poussin’s circle, who are offered opportunity for misreadings of details in construction
in several other paintings, as previously argued.
34
MARTYRDOM
OF ST ERASMUS
This revises the dossier in two ways. First, the
legend of the original reception of the painting is misleading. The argument is
that the e4vidence from Sandrart’s account of the reception of the picture has
been misread; and that the probable source of the legend of its lack of success
is due to Guido Reni and his friends.
35
Second, the peculiar perspective structure and the
extreme asymmetry of the picture have not been noticed or discussed since
Bellori published his Life of Poussin in 1672. Properly taken into account,
this answers the question raised by Anthony Blunt and Sir Denis Mahon’s dispute
of the 1960s: is Poussin a baroque or classical painter in his early years. The
relation of the altarpiece
to paintings by Titian and Caravaggio is discussed, especially to an engrving
by Cornelis Cort after Titian’s St Lawrence in the Gesuati and to Caravaggio’s paintings in the
Cerasi Chapel.
36
FECIT
OR FACIEBAT?
A note on Nicolas Poussin’s signature and
inscriptions on his paintings, explaining the antique usage ‘faciebat’.
37
ANTHONY BLUNT WRITES ABOUT POUSSIN’S DRAWINGS
The virtues of Blunt’s work on Poussin are those of
the thorough museum professional maker of dossiers. His approach to stylistics
is, however, lacking in articulation. Poussin’s known method of preparation for
paintings centres on his wax model figures on his model stage and his larger,
draped modelled figures. There are no clearly identifiable detailed drawings of
large figures. Do the larger figures take their place? Whether this is the case
or not, there had also to be a process of reckoning how the model theatre and
the larger figures are turned into painting rather than sculpture. Blunt does
not account of that process. His only approach to style is through supposed
appropriate style for subject, a crude expressionist approach. So violent
subjects need ‘vigorous’ – his favourite term of praise – treatment in a
drawing? He regards the drawings in terms of verisimilitude to something
already seen, but not the making of something that can be seen only when the drawing
has
been done.
Recent Comments