DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Locher, Hubert: The role of the museum in the formation of the art historical discourse
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52804#0017
4. Paintings by Raphael and Pe-
rugino in the Louvre around 1802,
idealized arrangement. From: Ga-
lerie du Louvre, représentée par des
gravures à l’eau-forte par Mme Cos-
way {...}. Paris 1802.
inspired Schlegel to adopt an original point of view
and even to reflect upon what Contemporary art
should be like. ‘Any new exhibition and combination
of old paintings’, Schlegel writes, ‘créâtes a new body,
where to the amateur many things appear in a new
and clearer light’.27
In fact, the Louvre display of Vivant Denon fol-
lowed by and large the principles of Mechel’s display
in the Belvedere in Vienna. The paintings were
grouped according to national schools and, more or
less, according to chronology. But far more impor-
tant than chronology is the aesthetic concept: Vivant
Denon focussed on main works and supplied them
27 SCHLEGEL, Friedrich: In: Europa, I, Nr. 1, p. 111-112 (1803).
28 Compare also the water colour drawing by Zix, Benjamin:
not only with a historical but also with an aesthetic
context, as can be concluded from the — partly ideal-
ized — etchings by Maria Cosway.28 [Fig 4} As can be
seen here, Denon displayed the ‘Transfiguration’ as
the highest achievement of Raphael surrounded by
smaller and earlier works of the same master, addi-
tionally flanked by two similar subjects of Raphael’s
teacher Perugino. By this arrangement, he made vis-
ible 1) that Perugino repeated himself using the same
patterns of composition 2) that the early Raphael’s
style was indeed very similar to his master’s 3) that
Raphael did not use ‘stock’ patterns like his master.
This is one visual argument of Denon’s display: On
Cortège du mariage de Napoléon et de Marie-Louise
d’Autriche, 24 X 172 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. M§4,
1832, no. 25.
15
rugino in the Louvre around 1802,
idealized arrangement. From: Ga-
lerie du Louvre, représentée par des
gravures à l’eau-forte par Mme Cos-
way {...}. Paris 1802.
inspired Schlegel to adopt an original point of view
and even to reflect upon what Contemporary art
should be like. ‘Any new exhibition and combination
of old paintings’, Schlegel writes, ‘créâtes a new body,
where to the amateur many things appear in a new
and clearer light’.27
In fact, the Louvre display of Vivant Denon fol-
lowed by and large the principles of Mechel’s display
in the Belvedere in Vienna. The paintings were
grouped according to national schools and, more or
less, according to chronology. But far more impor-
tant than chronology is the aesthetic concept: Vivant
Denon focussed on main works and supplied them
27 SCHLEGEL, Friedrich: In: Europa, I, Nr. 1, p. 111-112 (1803).
28 Compare also the water colour drawing by Zix, Benjamin:
not only with a historical but also with an aesthetic
context, as can be concluded from the — partly ideal-
ized — etchings by Maria Cosway.28 [Fig 4} As can be
seen here, Denon displayed the ‘Transfiguration’ as
the highest achievement of Raphael surrounded by
smaller and earlier works of the same master, addi-
tionally flanked by two similar subjects of Raphael’s
teacher Perugino. By this arrangement, he made vis-
ible 1) that Perugino repeated himself using the same
patterns of composition 2) that the early Raphael’s
style was indeed very similar to his master’s 3) that
Raphael did not use ‘stock’ patterns like his master.
This is one visual argument of Denon’s display: On
Cortège du mariage de Napoléon et de Marie-Louise
d’Autriche, 24 X 172 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. M§4,
1832, no. 25.
15