DOI Artikel:
Czekalski, Stanisław: Jan Białostocki, Goya's "Third of May", and the aporias of research on the genetic relations of paintings
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52534#0090
into a recognizable image. Trying to represent a motif
selected from nature, a painter or draughtsman first
had to interpret it in reference to a repertory of pic-
torial motifs and choose from it a schéma which
seemed the most adéquate. The choice of the schéma
was dictated by a certain conceptualization of a given
object of représentation. Accepting that schéma as
a starting point in the construction of the image, the
artist passed on to the stage of correction, trying to
adjust it to the data observable in nature and trans-
form it in such a way that it became most dosely simi-
lar to the real view of the represented motif. On the
other hand, however, that view, perceived through
the prism of the selected schéma, in an approach as-
suming an artistic effect, became similar to that sché-
ma as well; the painter “will therefore tend to see what he
paints rather than to paint what he sees."~ Hence,
a correction of a pictorial schéma could never totally
blur its traces in a new représentation. That made
Gombrich suppose that the schéma used in a given
painting, borrowed from earlier ones, remains recog-
nizable in spite of its transformation. It was an as-
sumption that the author of Art and Illusion conside-
red fundamental for art history: its goal is to recon-
struct the artistic tradition as a sériés of references of
one work to another, according to the principle of
“schéma and correction,” a sériés by définition including
every single pictorial représentation. For instance, “it
is not hard to show that the vocabulary which Constable
usedfor theportrayal of these East Anglia scenes cornes from
Gainsborough,”6 while “Gainsborough saw the lowland
scenery of East Anglia in terms of Dutch paintings which
he arduously studied and copied. ... And where did the
Dutch get their vocabulary? The answer to this type of ques-
tion is precisely what is known as the ‘history of arť. AU
paintings, as Wolfflin said, owe more to other paintings
than they owe to direct observation.”'' The task of the art
2 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology
of Pictorial Representation. London 1962, p. 73.
3 Ibidem, p. 267.
4 Ibidem, p. 268.
5 Ibidem, p. 320.
historian is then “to look for the dérivation ofany artisťs
vocabulary in the traditions of the past.”11 According to
Gombrich, to recognize the pattern adopted by the
artists as his starting point means to recognize the
way in which he interpreted the motif represented
and to háve an insight into his intention. If a landscape
by Constable resembles to the scholar the painting of
Gaspar Poussin, it means that Constable painted with
this particular model in mind, considering it the do-
sest to what he himself wanted to represent: “We can
observe how a comparison immediately avises in the paint-
er’s mind in front ofhis motif. He thinks of Gaspar Poussin,
whose grandiose mountain scenes had taught the eighteenth
Century to see the mountains in terms of the picturesque?'b
That fundamental principle of the dependence of
every painting upon another was supposed to be con-
firmed by Gombrich’s earlier analysis of the works of
Goya commemorating the Madrid massacre of 1808,
the best known among which is of course “The Third
of May 1808 - The Execution of the Insurgents”. On
that occasion Gombrich claimed: “The original genius
who ‘paints what he sees’ and créâtes new forms out of no-
thing is a Romantic myth. Even the greatest artist — and he
more than others — needs an idiom to work in. Only tradi-
tion, such as he finds it, can provide him with the raw
material of imagery which he needs to represent an event or
a fragment of nature’. He can re-fashion bis imagery, adapt
it to its task, assimilate it to his needs and change it beyond
récognition, but he can no more represent what is in front of
his eyes without a pre-existing stock ofacquired images than
he can paint it without the pre-existing set of colours he
must hâve on hispalette.”1 Even though Goya had seen
the execution of the Madrid insurgents with his own
eyes, he would not háve been able to transfer it onto
canvas without the support of other représentations
of such atrocities.8 If so, it is necessary to identify the
pattern used by Goya in “The Third of May”, and
6 Ibidem, p. 267. In this particular case, the artist himself re-
corded on the reverse side of the painting his association with
the style of Gaspar Poussin, which obviously confirms Gom-
brich's opinion. Usually, however, scholars must count only
on their own associations when they choose to construct such
genetic séries.
7 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Méditations on the Hobby Horse and Other
Essays on the Theory of Art. London 1963, p. 126.
8 Ibidem, p. 125.
88
selected from nature, a painter or draughtsman first
had to interpret it in reference to a repertory of pic-
torial motifs and choose from it a schéma which
seemed the most adéquate. The choice of the schéma
was dictated by a certain conceptualization of a given
object of représentation. Accepting that schéma as
a starting point in the construction of the image, the
artist passed on to the stage of correction, trying to
adjust it to the data observable in nature and trans-
form it in such a way that it became most dosely simi-
lar to the real view of the represented motif. On the
other hand, however, that view, perceived through
the prism of the selected schéma, in an approach as-
suming an artistic effect, became similar to that sché-
ma as well; the painter “will therefore tend to see what he
paints rather than to paint what he sees."~ Hence,
a correction of a pictorial schéma could never totally
blur its traces in a new représentation. That made
Gombrich suppose that the schéma used in a given
painting, borrowed from earlier ones, remains recog-
nizable in spite of its transformation. It was an as-
sumption that the author of Art and Illusion conside-
red fundamental for art history: its goal is to recon-
struct the artistic tradition as a sériés of references of
one work to another, according to the principle of
“schéma and correction,” a sériés by définition including
every single pictorial représentation. For instance, “it
is not hard to show that the vocabulary which Constable
usedfor theportrayal of these East Anglia scenes cornes from
Gainsborough,”6 while “Gainsborough saw the lowland
scenery of East Anglia in terms of Dutch paintings which
he arduously studied and copied. ... And where did the
Dutch get their vocabulary? The answer to this type of ques-
tion is precisely what is known as the ‘history of arť. AU
paintings, as Wolfflin said, owe more to other paintings
than they owe to direct observation.”'' The task of the art
2 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology
of Pictorial Representation. London 1962, p. 73.
3 Ibidem, p. 267.
4 Ibidem, p. 268.
5 Ibidem, p. 320.
historian is then “to look for the dérivation ofany artisťs
vocabulary in the traditions of the past.”11 According to
Gombrich, to recognize the pattern adopted by the
artists as his starting point means to recognize the
way in which he interpreted the motif represented
and to háve an insight into his intention. If a landscape
by Constable resembles to the scholar the painting of
Gaspar Poussin, it means that Constable painted with
this particular model in mind, considering it the do-
sest to what he himself wanted to represent: “We can
observe how a comparison immediately avises in the paint-
er’s mind in front ofhis motif. He thinks of Gaspar Poussin,
whose grandiose mountain scenes had taught the eighteenth
Century to see the mountains in terms of the picturesque?'b
That fundamental principle of the dependence of
every painting upon another was supposed to be con-
firmed by Gombrich’s earlier analysis of the works of
Goya commemorating the Madrid massacre of 1808,
the best known among which is of course “The Third
of May 1808 - The Execution of the Insurgents”. On
that occasion Gombrich claimed: “The original genius
who ‘paints what he sees’ and créâtes new forms out of no-
thing is a Romantic myth. Even the greatest artist — and he
more than others — needs an idiom to work in. Only tradi-
tion, such as he finds it, can provide him with the raw
material of imagery which he needs to represent an event or
a fragment of nature’. He can re-fashion bis imagery, adapt
it to its task, assimilate it to his needs and change it beyond
récognition, but he can no more represent what is in front of
his eyes without a pre-existing stock ofacquired images than
he can paint it without the pre-existing set of colours he
must hâve on hispalette.”1 Even though Goya had seen
the execution of the Madrid insurgents with his own
eyes, he would not háve been able to transfer it onto
canvas without the support of other représentations
of such atrocities.8 If so, it is necessary to identify the
pattern used by Goya in “The Third of May”, and
6 Ibidem, p. 267. In this particular case, the artist himself re-
corded on the reverse side of the painting his association with
the style of Gaspar Poussin, which obviously confirms Gom-
brich's opinion. Usually, however, scholars must count only
on their own associations when they choose to construct such
genetic séries.
7 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Méditations on the Hobby Horse and Other
Essays on the Theory of Art. London 1963, p. 126.
8 Ibidem, p. 125.
88