DOI Heft:
Nr. 4
DOI Artikel:Poprzęcka, Maria: "And I still see their faces": on Jan Matejko's Physiognomies
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18938#0100
With the passage of time, Matejko's faces attracted less attention. They were analyzed by
Mieczysław Treter who was right when he observed that: „In Matejko, expression concentrates
almost always on the faces of historie figures..., and less freąuently on the gestures of their
hands, and almost never or at least extremly seldom on the figures treated as a whole"3. Treter
also tried to define the naturę of the effect produced, according to him, ,, primarily as a result
of a marked enlargement of the whole eyeball, at times only the pupil, and special emphasis
on one of the facial muscles; the rest is achieved by a wealth of other methods"'. The most
memorable, however, are Witkiewicz's eloąuent descriptions, like that of Possewin: „The se-
vere, black, poor monk's face reigns over the whole glamour and power of the rest of the pain-
ting"5, acting as genuine verbal equivalents of the painted archetypes.
A lack of peculiar interest in the physiognomic aspect of Matejko's art reflects a similar absence
running throughout art history. According to Ernst Gombrich, it has focused on one aspect of
mimesis, the rendering of space and the development of "artifical perspectrye" whereas: „We
can perhaps rid art history of its obsession with space and bring other achieverr.ents into fo-
cus, the suggestion of light and texture, for instance, or the mastery of physiognomic expres-
sion"6.
Yet Gombrich was perfectly aware of the difficulty inherent in the approach suggested: „We
hardly know how we take it [physiognomic expression] in — it is there, and we respond____
We respond to a face as a whole: we see a friendly, or eager face, sad or sardonic, long before
we can tell what exact features or relationships account for this intuitive impression.... The
very immediacy of impression stands in the way of analysis, and so the discovery and simpli-
fication of facial expression provide the best example of the course taken by an artistic in-
vention. It is also an example of an invention the history of which has not been attempted"'.
Over thirty years have passed sińce Gombrich's statement, but the history has remained un-
written. As Gombrich expected, the task had proved very difficult: „Expression is hard to
analyse and harder to describe unequivocally. It is a curious fact, moreover, that our imme-
diate reaction results in firm convictions, but convictions which are rarely shared by all —
wittness the pages of interpretation that have been devoted to Mona Lisa's smile"8.
This unwritten history of physiognomical representation is closely linked with that of the
science of physiognomy and, like the latter, rests on the conviction that the face is a mirror of
the soul, that the soul impresses its stamp on the face and, the other way round, through the
face we may penetrate one, get to know one inside, learn of one's past and futurę. The science of
physiognomy has a long tradition in European thought, reaching as far back as antiquity; it
is spanned between astrology and contemporary anthropology, between oceultism and aspi-
rations after scientific precision; it is vital though still questioned down the foundations9. Em-
manuel Levinas questioning of its legitimacy: "Le visage est present dans son refus d'etre con-
tenu. Dans ce sens il ne saurait etre compris, c'est a dire englobe..."10. As his Polish commen-
3. M. Treter, Matejko. Osoboicość artysty, twórczość, forma i styl (Matejko, The Artist's Personality, Work, Form and Style),
Lwów—Warszawa, 1939, p. 521,
4. op. cit., p. 524.
5. S. Witkiewicz, Matejko, Lwów, undated, p. 258.
6. E.H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, London, 1962, p. 279.
7. op. cit., p. 282.
8. op. cit., p. 282.
9. The problems have been ontlined by J. Białostocki, Charakter — pojęcie i termin w teorii i historii sztuki (Charactcr:
Concept and Term in Art Theory and History) ia: Teoria i twórczość. O tradycji i inwencji w teorii sztuki i iknografii (Theory
and Creation. On Tradition and lnvention in Art Theory and Iconography), Poznań, 1961. A wealth of literary materiał
may be found in the anthology Maski (Masks), selected and edited by M. Janion and S. Rosiek, vols 1—2, Gdańsk, 1986.
10. E. Levinas, Tolalilć et infini. Essai sur l'exterioritć, The Hagne, 1961, p. 168.
86
Mieczysław Treter who was right when he observed that: „In Matejko, expression concentrates
almost always on the faces of historie figures..., and less freąuently on the gestures of their
hands, and almost never or at least extremly seldom on the figures treated as a whole"3. Treter
also tried to define the naturę of the effect produced, according to him, ,, primarily as a result
of a marked enlargement of the whole eyeball, at times only the pupil, and special emphasis
on one of the facial muscles; the rest is achieved by a wealth of other methods"'. The most
memorable, however, are Witkiewicz's eloąuent descriptions, like that of Possewin: „The se-
vere, black, poor monk's face reigns over the whole glamour and power of the rest of the pain-
ting"5, acting as genuine verbal equivalents of the painted archetypes.
A lack of peculiar interest in the physiognomic aspect of Matejko's art reflects a similar absence
running throughout art history. According to Ernst Gombrich, it has focused on one aspect of
mimesis, the rendering of space and the development of "artifical perspectrye" whereas: „We
can perhaps rid art history of its obsession with space and bring other achieverr.ents into fo-
cus, the suggestion of light and texture, for instance, or the mastery of physiognomic expres-
sion"6.
Yet Gombrich was perfectly aware of the difficulty inherent in the approach suggested: „We
hardly know how we take it [physiognomic expression] in — it is there, and we respond____
We respond to a face as a whole: we see a friendly, or eager face, sad or sardonic, long before
we can tell what exact features or relationships account for this intuitive impression.... The
very immediacy of impression stands in the way of analysis, and so the discovery and simpli-
fication of facial expression provide the best example of the course taken by an artistic in-
vention. It is also an example of an invention the history of which has not been attempted"'.
Over thirty years have passed sińce Gombrich's statement, but the history has remained un-
written. As Gombrich expected, the task had proved very difficult: „Expression is hard to
analyse and harder to describe unequivocally. It is a curious fact, moreover, that our imme-
diate reaction results in firm convictions, but convictions which are rarely shared by all —
wittness the pages of interpretation that have been devoted to Mona Lisa's smile"8.
This unwritten history of physiognomical representation is closely linked with that of the
science of physiognomy and, like the latter, rests on the conviction that the face is a mirror of
the soul, that the soul impresses its stamp on the face and, the other way round, through the
face we may penetrate one, get to know one inside, learn of one's past and futurę. The science of
physiognomy has a long tradition in European thought, reaching as far back as antiquity; it
is spanned between astrology and contemporary anthropology, between oceultism and aspi-
rations after scientific precision; it is vital though still questioned down the foundations9. Em-
manuel Levinas questioning of its legitimacy: "Le visage est present dans son refus d'etre con-
tenu. Dans ce sens il ne saurait etre compris, c'est a dire englobe..."10. As his Polish commen-
3. M. Treter, Matejko. Osoboicość artysty, twórczość, forma i styl (Matejko, The Artist's Personality, Work, Form and Style),
Lwów—Warszawa, 1939, p. 521,
4. op. cit., p. 524.
5. S. Witkiewicz, Matejko, Lwów, undated, p. 258.
6. E.H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, London, 1962, p. 279.
7. op. cit., p. 282.
8. op. cit., p. 282.
9. The problems have been ontlined by J. Białostocki, Charakter — pojęcie i termin w teorii i historii sztuki (Charactcr:
Concept and Term in Art Theory and History) ia: Teoria i twórczość. O tradycji i inwencji w teorii sztuki i iknografii (Theory
and Creation. On Tradition and lnvention in Art Theory and Iconography), Poznań, 1961. A wealth of literary materiał
may be found in the anthology Maski (Masks), selected and edited by M. Janion and S. Rosiek, vols 1—2, Gdańsk, 1986.
10. E. Levinas, Tolalilć et infini. Essai sur l'exterioritć, The Hagne, 1961, p. 168.
86