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#0099
does not allow for any critical vérification of the daims
concerning “frame” analogies which for different scho-
lars may in fact be very diverse. Such a situation pro-
vokes much futile spéculation as regards the original
“meta-idea” in which the image in question is rooted,
directing the artist’s imagination toward an indefi-
nite other représentation.
Bialostocki did not conceal his own sense of un-
certainty and doubts provoked by the theory of "frame
suhjects", which can be found in his book, Symbole
i obrazy w swiecie sztuki [Symbols and Images in the
World of Art], Actually, the scholar hesitated in re-
spect to principles determining the transposition of
the frame éléments of iconography. An explanation
of that process in structuralist and psychological terms
went against the grain of historical exegesis. At first,
Bialostocki tended to believe that the analogies be-
tween paintings on the level of general formai and
ideological schémas stem primarily from the nature
of the human mind, always choosing the same
“frames”, which leads to a conclusion that on this le-
vel interpictorial relations appear independently of any
genetic links, i.e. they can take place without any
influence of one work on another. On the one hand,
“among the paintings which belong to one group within
a given ‘frame subject’ mutual influences resulting in ico-
nographie transformations are particularly frequent,
while on the other, no dérivations are necessary. If the
“fundamental thoughts of the human mind created an ele-
mentary repertory of myths, common for almost ail humani-
ty, it would be no wonder that the basic imagery, those 'frame
subjects' came into being independently of one another as
an iconographie équivalent of mythology,”45 46 Bialostocki
believed that the “world of images — symbolic, archétypal
or frame images, no matter what we prefer to call them —
described by Jung, is definitely related to the fundamental
functions ofthe human mind. ... It is a fact that those basic
ideological thèmes, combined with plastic motifs into orga-
nieforms, can be found ...in the art ofAssyria, in the worlds
ofAeschylus, Dante, the Romanesque sculpture, Shakespeare,
Blake, Goya, and Picasso.”''1 They belong to the deep
structure of the universal language of images which
speaks not only of the represented world, “but also —
or perhaps even in the first place — of the structure of the
human mind."''" However, years later, remembering
that opinion in the first chapter of Symbole i obrazy
w swiecie sztuki, Bialostocki admits: "An art historian
will be right, if... he realizes, analyzing the rise, inertia,
and continuity of the iconographie répertories by historical
methods, that he will be able to explain many Problems ...
without recourse to an assumption of the ‘unchanging hu-
man mind’Critically distancing himself from the
tenets of structuralism and accepting the results of
more recent research on the iconography of Rem-
brandt’s paintings, Bialostocki revised his thesis about
the key importance of frame subjects for the art of
the Dutch master. Still, he kept thinking about the
possibility of combining structuralism, psychologism,
and the genetic approach in the attempts to explain
relationships among paintings representing the same
frame subject. Eventually, he found no ultimate so-
lution to his dilemma.
Analyzing the problém of interpictorial relations,
Bialostocki also paid much attention to “The Third
ofMay” by Goya. His considérations on that particu-
lar painting most fully revealed the dubious status of
theses interpreting perceptible analogies between
works of art as evidence of their genetic proximity.
Writing about Goya’s painting in Teoria i tworczos'c,
the scholar did not assume it necessary to point to
any spécifie pattern that the artist might hâve used.
He considered “The Third ofMay” a perfect example
of the concretization of a constant frame subject,
a pictorial archétype which did not stem from art,
but from the deep structure of the human mind. Va-
rious historically changing iconographie variants of
the same basic pattern, an imaginary schéma, do not
hâve to be connected by genetic relations, since in fact
ail of them dérivé from the same source. They can be
approached as parallel solutions which independent-
ly of one another take up the same archétypal image
- the “image of the opposition of man and the powers of
45 Ibidem, p. 151-152.
46 BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Témat ramowy i obraz archetypiczny:
psychologia i ikonografîa. In: Teoria i tworczosc... 1961 (see in
note 34), p. 161.
47 Ibidem, p. 166-167.
48 Ibidem, p. 168.
49 BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Symbole i obrazy. In: Symbole i obrazy...
(see in note 32), p. 17.
97
concerning “frame” analogies which for different scho-
lars may in fact be very diverse. Such a situation pro-
vokes much futile spéculation as regards the original
“meta-idea” in which the image in question is rooted,
directing the artist’s imagination toward an indefi-
nite other représentation.
Bialostocki did not conceal his own sense of un-
certainty and doubts provoked by the theory of "frame
suhjects", which can be found in his book, Symbole
i obrazy w swiecie sztuki [Symbols and Images in the
World of Art], Actually, the scholar hesitated in re-
spect to principles determining the transposition of
the frame éléments of iconography. An explanation
of that process in structuralist and psychological terms
went against the grain of historical exegesis. At first,
Bialostocki tended to believe that the analogies be-
tween paintings on the level of general formai and
ideological schémas stem primarily from the nature
of the human mind, always choosing the same
“frames”, which leads to a conclusion that on this le-
vel interpictorial relations appear independently of any
genetic links, i.e. they can take place without any
influence of one work on another. On the one hand,
“among the paintings which belong to one group within
a given ‘frame subject’ mutual influences resulting in ico-
nographie transformations are particularly frequent,
while on the other, no dérivations are necessary. If the
“fundamental thoughts of the human mind created an ele-
mentary repertory of myths, common for almost ail humani-
ty, it would be no wonder that the basic imagery, those 'frame
subjects' came into being independently of one another as
an iconographie équivalent of mythology,”45 46 Bialostocki
believed that the “world of images — symbolic, archétypal
or frame images, no matter what we prefer to call them —
described by Jung, is definitely related to the fundamental
functions ofthe human mind. ... It is a fact that those basic
ideological thèmes, combined with plastic motifs into orga-
nieforms, can be found ...in the art ofAssyria, in the worlds
ofAeschylus, Dante, the Romanesque sculpture, Shakespeare,
Blake, Goya, and Picasso.”''1 They belong to the deep
structure of the universal language of images which
speaks not only of the represented world, “but also —
or perhaps even in the first place — of the structure of the
human mind."''" However, years later, remembering
that opinion in the first chapter of Symbole i obrazy
w swiecie sztuki, Bialostocki admits: "An art historian
will be right, if... he realizes, analyzing the rise, inertia,
and continuity of the iconographie répertories by historical
methods, that he will be able to explain many Problems ...
without recourse to an assumption of the ‘unchanging hu-
man mind’Critically distancing himself from the
tenets of structuralism and accepting the results of
more recent research on the iconography of Rem-
brandt’s paintings, Bialostocki revised his thesis about
the key importance of frame subjects for the art of
the Dutch master. Still, he kept thinking about the
possibility of combining structuralism, psychologism,
and the genetic approach in the attempts to explain
relationships among paintings representing the same
frame subject. Eventually, he found no ultimate so-
lution to his dilemma.
Analyzing the problém of interpictorial relations,
Bialostocki also paid much attention to “The Third
ofMay” by Goya. His considérations on that particu-
lar painting most fully revealed the dubious status of
theses interpreting perceptible analogies between
works of art as evidence of their genetic proximity.
Writing about Goya’s painting in Teoria i tworczos'c,
the scholar did not assume it necessary to point to
any spécifie pattern that the artist might hâve used.
He considered “The Third ofMay” a perfect example
of the concretization of a constant frame subject,
a pictorial archétype which did not stem from art,
but from the deep structure of the human mind. Va-
rious historically changing iconographie variants of
the same basic pattern, an imaginary schéma, do not
hâve to be connected by genetic relations, since in fact
ail of them dérivé from the same source. They can be
approached as parallel solutions which independent-
ly of one another take up the same archétypal image
- the “image of the opposition of man and the powers of
45 Ibidem, p. 151-152.
46 BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Témat ramowy i obraz archetypiczny:
psychologia i ikonografîa. In: Teoria i tworczosc... 1961 (see in
note 34), p. 161.
47 Ibidem, p. 166-167.
48 Ibidem, p. 168.
49 BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Symbole i obrazy. In: Symbole i obrazy...
(see in note 32), p. 17.
97