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#0101
necting “The Third of May” with “The Execution of
Russian Patriots”, which most probably Goya did not
know, are at least as close as those with the American
etching which the artist might - but only might -
háve known. This means that a distinct similarity of
two paintings does not háve to imply their genetic
relationship, so that Revere’s “Bloody Massacre” did
not háve to be Goya’s model, either, and if so, it is
quite possible that the alleged schema-correction ties
may be interpreted as parallels related only to one
and the same frame schéma.
Ultimately, then, Bialostocki gave no final answer
to his key question: to what extent, if at all, the rela-
tionship of a painting to an archétypal formula enco-
ded in the artisťs mind must be mediated by its rela-
tionship to a spécifie pictorial pattern? What is the value
in this respect of the theory of Gombrich and that of
the frame archétypes? The páper, Pluton egzekucyjny od
Paula Revere do Goyi [The Firing Squad from Paul Ré-
véré to Goya], is a perfect example of considérations
on interpictorial relations following the direction indi-
cated by the book by Hermerén, reversing the tradi-
tional order of argument and multiplying doubts.
Since it remains impossible to validate or refute
the daims concerning the genetic relations of paint-
ings, art history can only stay within their vicious cir-
cle: it can propose new suppositions which would be
as unverifiable as the old ones, repeat or question
hypothèses which hâve been proposed before. As re-
gards “The Third of May”, one may agréé with the
daims of Hermerén and Bialostocki that the analo-
gies between this particular painting and others do
not imply any genetic connection, or with the theses
of Gombrich or Sandbald that they actually confirm
actual influences. Besides, one may multiply ad in-
finitum potential models and by the same token chal-
lenge any proposais of that kind, following Herme-
rén and Bialostocki again. The role of the pictorial
“sources" of “The Third of May” can just as well be
played by three other engravings: one by Jean-Fran-
çois Janinet, from the sériés representing the most
important épisodes of the French Revolution, which
shows firing at the crowd in the courtyard of the
Bastille (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris), an
etching by Juan Carrafo, “The Massacre of the Insur-
gents ofMay 2, 1808 in Madrid”, and an anonymous
woodeut with the scene of “The Execution of Monks
in Valencia” (both in Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid).
Close similarities connecting so many alternative
“models" of Goya’s painting on the one hand make
one think about some genetic relationship among ail
of them, founded upon a sériés of influences, while
the other option is that there are no genetic connec-
tions at ail. Neither of the two directions of spécula-
tion leads to historical truth — to the knowledge of
“how it really was." Their overview allows one only to
draw conclusions concerning art history “as a kind of
writing" on the reconstruction of genetic interpicto-
rial relations, the theoretical foundation of which has
been created, among others, by Kubler and Gom-
brich. It turns out to be a discourse of paradoxes.
Dominated by a belief that revealing the influences
of certain works of art on others is the basic, obvious,
and attainable goal of research, in fact this discourse
leads to something quite opposite: it results in the
dissémination of unverifiable, but also irréfutable hy-
pothèses which often happen to be contradictory or
mutually exclusive, at the same time suggesting pro-
bable genetic relationships among paintings: borro-
wings, adaptations, quotations or allusions. In con-
séquence, art history constructs a network of inter-
pictorial relations with no palpable reference to the
extrapictorial reality. Those relations do not reflect ac-
tual influences which took place while spécifie works
were coming into being, but stem from the observa-
tions and associations of scholars. This network of in-
terpictorial connections, inséparable from interpréta-
tions of paintings against the background of others, in
fact corresponds to the space called by the poststruc-
turalist literary theory “intertextuality". Still, intertex-
tuality as a theoretical category which deconstructs the
“myth offiliations" remains for art history a difficult chal-
lenge, since it aims at its epistemological foundations
and questions its academie status of a discipline gath-
ering knowledge of the past.55
English by M. Wilczynski
55 See BARTHES, R: From Work to Text. In: Image — Music -
Text. Transi. S. HEATH. New York 1977, pp. 155-164.
99
Russian Patriots”, which most probably Goya did not
know, are at least as close as those with the American
etching which the artist might - but only might -
háve known. This means that a distinct similarity of
two paintings does not háve to imply their genetic
relationship, so that Revere’s “Bloody Massacre” did
not háve to be Goya’s model, either, and if so, it is
quite possible that the alleged schema-correction ties
may be interpreted as parallels related only to one
and the same frame schéma.
Ultimately, then, Bialostocki gave no final answer
to his key question: to what extent, if at all, the rela-
tionship of a painting to an archétypal formula enco-
ded in the artisťs mind must be mediated by its rela-
tionship to a spécifie pictorial pattern? What is the value
in this respect of the theory of Gombrich and that of
the frame archétypes? The páper, Pluton egzekucyjny od
Paula Revere do Goyi [The Firing Squad from Paul Ré-
véré to Goya], is a perfect example of considérations
on interpictorial relations following the direction indi-
cated by the book by Hermerén, reversing the tradi-
tional order of argument and multiplying doubts.
Since it remains impossible to validate or refute
the daims concerning the genetic relations of paint-
ings, art history can only stay within their vicious cir-
cle: it can propose new suppositions which would be
as unverifiable as the old ones, repeat or question
hypothèses which hâve been proposed before. As re-
gards “The Third of May”, one may agréé with the
daims of Hermerén and Bialostocki that the analo-
gies between this particular painting and others do
not imply any genetic connection, or with the theses
of Gombrich or Sandbald that they actually confirm
actual influences. Besides, one may multiply ad in-
finitum potential models and by the same token chal-
lenge any proposais of that kind, following Herme-
rén and Bialostocki again. The role of the pictorial
“sources" of “The Third of May” can just as well be
played by three other engravings: one by Jean-Fran-
çois Janinet, from the sériés representing the most
important épisodes of the French Revolution, which
shows firing at the crowd in the courtyard of the
Bastille (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris), an
etching by Juan Carrafo, “The Massacre of the Insur-
gents ofMay 2, 1808 in Madrid”, and an anonymous
woodeut with the scene of “The Execution of Monks
in Valencia” (both in Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid).
Close similarities connecting so many alternative
“models" of Goya’s painting on the one hand make
one think about some genetic relationship among ail
of them, founded upon a sériés of influences, while
the other option is that there are no genetic connec-
tions at ail. Neither of the two directions of spécula-
tion leads to historical truth — to the knowledge of
“how it really was." Their overview allows one only to
draw conclusions concerning art history “as a kind of
writing" on the reconstruction of genetic interpicto-
rial relations, the theoretical foundation of which has
been created, among others, by Kubler and Gom-
brich. It turns out to be a discourse of paradoxes.
Dominated by a belief that revealing the influences
of certain works of art on others is the basic, obvious,
and attainable goal of research, in fact this discourse
leads to something quite opposite: it results in the
dissémination of unverifiable, but also irréfutable hy-
pothèses which often happen to be contradictory or
mutually exclusive, at the same time suggesting pro-
bable genetic relationships among paintings: borro-
wings, adaptations, quotations or allusions. In con-
séquence, art history constructs a network of inter-
pictorial relations with no palpable reference to the
extrapictorial reality. Those relations do not reflect ac-
tual influences which took place while spécifie works
were coming into being, but stem from the observa-
tions and associations of scholars. This network of in-
terpictorial connections, inséparable from interpréta-
tions of paintings against the background of others, in
fact corresponds to the space called by the poststruc-
turalist literary theory “intertextuality". Still, intertex-
tuality as a theoretical category which deconstructs the
“myth offiliations" remains for art history a difficult chal-
lenge, since it aims at its epistemological foundations
and questions its academie status of a discipline gath-
ering knowledge of the past.55
English by M. Wilczynski
55 See BARTHES, R: From Work to Text. In: Image — Music -
Text. Transi. S. HEATH. New York 1977, pp. 155-164.
99