Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (44.2011)

/Z G. B. TATo/AA'wgA ARAA^yvAAr A TA^A^A^C 77JO — /773.

ished. Tiepolo is the hrst to drive the hgurative to
the absurd, as with the hgures at the external edge
of the ceiling, in Würzburg, exaggerated in their
presence in the inhnite space of heaven [Fig. 12].
This is the reason for their non-existence. And so
Tiepolo questioned and doubted the necessity of
the hgurative, which for him was only an iHusion:
the reality lies more in the process of perception,
which dépends on the language of colour m space.
The hgurative object is only a pretext to make vis-
ible the beauty of the inhnite. Tiepolo's intellectual
technique showed that the use of colour, or the use
of light is more than an effectA Colour is a little
universe of appearances.
Turner in his AgA (AÀwr (GAAA TAory)
— TA AforAyy y/Tr /A D<?Ay<? — Aíotřt IFAA'yg Ař

For aesthetic reAections on Tiepolo, see ARGAN, G. C.:
Vols. 1-3. Firenze 1968, pp. 386 ff.

o/ G<w<?.iA appears to follow Tiepolo. The hgures, like
Moses and the other people, are mere shadows, ap-
pearing only as part of the colour surrounding them.
We recognize a movement of colour in an undehned
space full of light. Turner not only put many colours
one over the other, but used different brushstrokes,
to vary the intensity of the painted colour. Thus he
rendered parts of the painting close and aggressive,
while others were smoother, and tender in their
movement. Through his technique, he created dif-
ferent moods of the brushstrokes. Turner developed
his own technique in which he put magnanimously
painted masses of colour and dynamic brushstrokes,
so that the paintings seemed like sketches and looked
unhnished and were criticized from the beginningV
^ TA Ox/ôA A? y. Ai. HZ Eds. E. JOLL — M.
BUTLIN - L. HERRMANN. Oxford 2001, pp. 258-260; see
also lAw; BAy, ATnMà'... (see in note 5), p. 351

238