DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20658#0203
ILLUSION.
189
Flemish and Dutch seems to be unquestionable, as his is founded upon the same principle with
that which governs the historical painter in his researches after perfection in the forms of his
characters.
How far the landscape painter is allowed to avail himself of these accidents of nature, as they
are called, or to reject them, is a question not easy to be determined. Certain it is that Claude
seldom introduced them, probably because they seemed to be incompatible with that calmness
and serenity of general nature which he commonly represented.
The portrait painter, whose chief merit seems to consist in a minute correct representation of
the individual he is employed to paint, ought in the same manner to give a nobler turn to his
work, by introducing a fancy, a variety, and a dignity, borrowed from the higher branches of
the art; and, as was well said of Reynolds by his friend Burke, " his portraits ought to remind the
spectator of the invention of history, and of the amenity of landscape. In painting portraits the
artist ought not to appear to be raised upon the platform, but to have descended to it from
a higher sphere."
Portrait painters, when they attempt history, are very apt to be led by the habit of a close
illusive imitation of persons, to run too much into minute detail. Their historical heads and
figures too frequently resemble particular portraits ; as was once the custom amongst old artists,
on the revival of painting, and before generalization of figures and objects was either understood
or practised. A history painter is to represent men in general; a portrait painter some particular
man, and consequently a defective model. A great style in painting is sure to suffer, more or
less, by any meaner mixture : but it often happens that the inferior may be improved by borrow-
ing from the superior. Thus, if a portrait painter is desirous to raise and improve his subject,
he has no other means than by approaching it to a general idea. He must leave out all the
minute peculiarities of the countenance, and instead of a modern temporary dress suited to the
fashion of the day, bestow on the figure one more permanent, to which no idea of meanness has
been connected in the minds of his spectators. On the other hand, if a correct resemblance
of the person be considered as the only object of his pursuit, the painter runs the risk of losing
more than he can gain, by introducing general ideas drawn from the great body of nature around
him. Hence it is so difficult to give an air of superior dignity or elegance to a countenance,
without departing materially from the exact likeness generally required by those who sit to the
painter.
Upon the whole it is certain that illusion, in the true sense of the term, deserves the attention
of the painter. Ideal beauty is to be very highly valued ; but its principal merit lies in enabling
the artist to overcome the defects in objects as they exist around us, and not in departing from
the general truth of resemblance. The extreme difficulty of producing a perfect illusion, on a
plain surface, has sometimes driven even great masters to collect in their works a multitude of
extraneous and artificial beauties, that they might in some measure compensate for their inability
to represent those which really exist in the objects of their art. And this may be one reason
why the art itself has made less progress towards perfection than might have been expected;
for so long as perfection, however distant, is supposed to be attainable, efforts will be made to
arrive at it: and although no artist should ever be completely successful, yet his exertions will
be sure to carry him to a degree of excellence which, had he contented himself with the idea of
its unattainableness, he never would have approached.
3 c SECTION
189
Flemish and Dutch seems to be unquestionable, as his is founded upon the same principle with
that which governs the historical painter in his researches after perfection in the forms of his
characters.
How far the landscape painter is allowed to avail himself of these accidents of nature, as they
are called, or to reject them, is a question not easy to be determined. Certain it is that Claude
seldom introduced them, probably because they seemed to be incompatible with that calmness
and serenity of general nature which he commonly represented.
The portrait painter, whose chief merit seems to consist in a minute correct representation of
the individual he is employed to paint, ought in the same manner to give a nobler turn to his
work, by introducing a fancy, a variety, and a dignity, borrowed from the higher branches of
the art; and, as was well said of Reynolds by his friend Burke, " his portraits ought to remind the
spectator of the invention of history, and of the amenity of landscape. In painting portraits the
artist ought not to appear to be raised upon the platform, but to have descended to it from
a higher sphere."
Portrait painters, when they attempt history, are very apt to be led by the habit of a close
illusive imitation of persons, to run too much into minute detail. Their historical heads and
figures too frequently resemble particular portraits ; as was once the custom amongst old artists,
on the revival of painting, and before generalization of figures and objects was either understood
or practised. A history painter is to represent men in general; a portrait painter some particular
man, and consequently a defective model. A great style in painting is sure to suffer, more or
less, by any meaner mixture : but it often happens that the inferior may be improved by borrow-
ing from the superior. Thus, if a portrait painter is desirous to raise and improve his subject,
he has no other means than by approaching it to a general idea. He must leave out all the
minute peculiarities of the countenance, and instead of a modern temporary dress suited to the
fashion of the day, bestow on the figure one more permanent, to which no idea of meanness has
been connected in the minds of his spectators. On the other hand, if a correct resemblance
of the person be considered as the only object of his pursuit, the painter runs the risk of losing
more than he can gain, by introducing general ideas drawn from the great body of nature around
him. Hence it is so difficult to give an air of superior dignity or elegance to a countenance,
without departing materially from the exact likeness generally required by those who sit to the
painter.
Upon the whole it is certain that illusion, in the true sense of the term, deserves the attention
of the painter. Ideal beauty is to be very highly valued ; but its principal merit lies in enabling
the artist to overcome the defects in objects as they exist around us, and not in departing from
the general truth of resemblance. The extreme difficulty of producing a perfect illusion, on a
plain surface, has sometimes driven even great masters to collect in their works a multitude of
extraneous and artificial beauties, that they might in some measure compensate for their inability
to represent those which really exist in the objects of their art. And this may be one reason
why the art itself has made less progress towards perfection than might have been expected;
for so long as perfection, however distant, is supposed to be attainable, efforts will be made to
arrive at it: and although no artist should ever be completely successful, yet his exertions will
be sure to carry him to a degree of excellence which, had he contented himself with the idea of
its unattainableness, he never would have approached.
3 c SECTION