DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53068#0128
VIII
ROMAN PORTRAITS
§ Historical Painter and Portrait-painter. Likeness and something more
r | ^HE great historical painter and the true portrait-painter both spring
I from the same stock; both titles alike are deserved only by one capable
A of abstracting from events and from men the sum of their spiritual
significance, and of knowing how to reduce them to a simple, comprehensible,
impressive formula. He will track out what is important in the phenomenon of
the individual as in the historical process; he will disclose in them the higher power
that was embodied in this particular living form and no other, or evoked this
rhythm of occurrences, exercising an influence on this particular individual or
course of events so as to reveal itself in them. In both cases the greatness of the
interpreting artist consists in perceiving and making visible the essential.
The real portrait-painter cannot possibly stop short at mere likeness, even
when a model has been set for him. For him, the outer shell in his subject is
less important than the shaping, motive power; he divines in the given form how
its basic material has been transformed by life, and how it was the spirit that
fashioned for itself this embodiment and no other.
Speaking of himself, Raphael acknowledged, in that much-quoted letter to
Castiglione, that in moments of creative inspiration, a “certa idea” gleamed
before him; he might thus have applied to himself the words of his “duca e
poeta”—“ficca diretro agli occhi tuoi la mente”—“direct thy mind towards
that which lies behind the field of vision”. This idea therefore may possibly
impart to his portraits, however convincing the likeness that speaks in each
individual, a factor in common which causes all the cardinals, humanists and
ladies to appear like kinsmen of a single family.
§ Subjectivity
It is generally not considered a compliment to the faithfulness of a portrait-
painter if he himself is constantly being recognised in his works; this was dis-
astrous to Rubens’s portraits, and Van Dyck’s great power ends in his own
gallant snobbery. Raphael does not possess the objectivity with which portrait-
painters are commonly supposed to approach their work. He belongs through
and through to the class of subjective painters who impart to the model what is
in themselves, but he understands at the same time how to sum up and para-
i io
ROMAN PORTRAITS
§ Historical Painter and Portrait-painter. Likeness and something more
r | ^HE great historical painter and the true portrait-painter both spring
I from the same stock; both titles alike are deserved only by one capable
A of abstracting from events and from men the sum of their spiritual
significance, and of knowing how to reduce them to a simple, comprehensible,
impressive formula. He will track out what is important in the phenomenon of
the individual as in the historical process; he will disclose in them the higher power
that was embodied in this particular living form and no other, or evoked this
rhythm of occurrences, exercising an influence on this particular individual or
course of events so as to reveal itself in them. In both cases the greatness of the
interpreting artist consists in perceiving and making visible the essential.
The real portrait-painter cannot possibly stop short at mere likeness, even
when a model has been set for him. For him, the outer shell in his subject is
less important than the shaping, motive power; he divines in the given form how
its basic material has been transformed by life, and how it was the spirit that
fashioned for itself this embodiment and no other.
Speaking of himself, Raphael acknowledged, in that much-quoted letter to
Castiglione, that in moments of creative inspiration, a “certa idea” gleamed
before him; he might thus have applied to himself the words of his “duca e
poeta”—“ficca diretro agli occhi tuoi la mente”—“direct thy mind towards
that which lies behind the field of vision”. This idea therefore may possibly
impart to his portraits, however convincing the likeness that speaks in each
individual, a factor in common which causes all the cardinals, humanists and
ladies to appear like kinsmen of a single family.
§ Subjectivity
It is generally not considered a compliment to the faithfulness of a portrait-
painter if he himself is constantly being recognised in his works; this was dis-
astrous to Rubens’s portraits, and Van Dyck’s great power ends in his own
gallant snobbery. Raphael does not possess the objectivity with which portrait-
painters are commonly supposed to approach their work. He belongs through
and through to the class of subjective painters who impart to the model what is
in themselves, but he understands at the same time how to sum up and para-
i io