DOI article:
Czekalski, Stanisław: Jan Białostocki, Goya's "Third of May", and the aporias of research on the genetic relations of paintings
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52534#0093
I. Francisco Goya: The Third
of May 1808 — The Execution ofthe
Insurgenti, 1814, a section. Museo del
Prado, Madrid. Repro: GUD10L,
J. : Goya. Praha 1982, p. 281,
fig. 581 (Vol. II).
ter, looking for indications that the artist could actu-
ally never see a given work.24 Still, if in a given case
there is no doubt that the maker of Y saw X before,
and indeed Y is in some respect similar to X, but this
similarity can be contrasted with the similarity of Y
to the work Z which the artist in question might have
seen as well, then the confirmation of contact does
not détermine anything as regards the actual influ-
ence. Although previous contact is a necessary con-
dition for any daims of influence, it is not sufficient;
the artist may have known the work X and still re-
main independent of it, making Y.25 Even though
his own painting Y resembles some earlier painting
which he had an opportunity to see, this is no evi-
dence of influence, as the coincidence may be purely
accidentai. Hermerén emphasizes that the conditions
of similarity and contact, necessary to legitimize the
daims about the influence of one work on another,
altogether do not provide sufficient ground for such
Claims.26 In other words, the fact that the artist might
24 Ibidem, pp. 169-170.
25 Ibidem, pp. 117, 125, 172-173.
have seen or really saw the work X and then made Y
which in some respect turns out similar to X, does
not détermine the actual influence as a cause-and-
effect relationship between one and the other. Such
a relationship still remains only probable, by no means
affecting the probability of the opposite claim of no
influence. Influence is a relationship which may but
does not have to have taken place between the con-
tact of the maker of Y with the work X and
a graspable effect of similarity of Y to X in some as-
pect. What really décidés about such a relationship
is a cause-and-effect change. If the work X actually
influenced Y as regards a, it means that without that
influence the work Y would have been quite diffe-
rent in respect to a.27 If the maker of Y had not seen
X, he would have definitely not achieved the effect
Ya. Abandoning the claim that the artist must have
taken into account X to obtain the effect of Ya would
have meant that his familiarity with X had no influ-
ence on Ya - then it would have been no influence,
26 Ibidem, pp. 239.
27 Ibidem, pp. 239, 246-247.
91
of May 1808 — The Execution ofthe
Insurgenti, 1814, a section. Museo del
Prado, Madrid. Repro: GUD10L,
J. : Goya. Praha 1982, p. 281,
fig. 581 (Vol. II).
ter, looking for indications that the artist could actu-
ally never see a given work.24 Still, if in a given case
there is no doubt that the maker of Y saw X before,
and indeed Y is in some respect similar to X, but this
similarity can be contrasted with the similarity of Y
to the work Z which the artist in question might have
seen as well, then the confirmation of contact does
not détermine anything as regards the actual influ-
ence. Although previous contact is a necessary con-
dition for any daims of influence, it is not sufficient;
the artist may have known the work X and still re-
main independent of it, making Y.25 Even though
his own painting Y resembles some earlier painting
which he had an opportunity to see, this is no evi-
dence of influence, as the coincidence may be purely
accidentai. Hermerén emphasizes that the conditions
of similarity and contact, necessary to legitimize the
daims about the influence of one work on another,
altogether do not provide sufficient ground for such
Claims.26 In other words, the fact that the artist might
24 Ibidem, pp. 169-170.
25 Ibidem, pp. 117, 125, 172-173.
have seen or really saw the work X and then made Y
which in some respect turns out similar to X, does
not détermine the actual influence as a cause-and-
effect relationship between one and the other. Such
a relationship still remains only probable, by no means
affecting the probability of the opposite claim of no
influence. Influence is a relationship which may but
does not have to have taken place between the con-
tact of the maker of Y with the work X and
a graspable effect of similarity of Y to X in some as-
pect. What really décidés about such a relationship
is a cause-and-effect change. If the work X actually
influenced Y as regards a, it means that without that
influence the work Y would have been quite diffe-
rent in respect to a.27 If the maker of Y had not seen
X, he would have definitely not achieved the effect
Ya. Abandoning the claim that the artist must have
taken into account X to obtain the effect of Ya would
have meant that his familiarity with X had no influ-
ence on Ya - then it would have been no influence,
26 Ibidem, pp. 239.
27 Ibidem, pp. 239, 246-247.
91